Post by: Little Joe on June 12, 2016, 07:32:44 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/florida-gay-nightclub-shooting-injuries-reported-at-pulse-orland/
I wonder what the toll would have been if even one or two other patrons had a gun.
Post by: Anthony on June 12, 2016, 07:57:05 AM
Post by: Little Joe on June 12, 2016, 08:45:10 AM
Islamic terrorism at it's finest. America is under attack, yet this Administration won't address it. This will become workplace violence again.I suspect they will try to blame it on Conservative Homophobes.
And guns.
Post by: Lucifer on June 12, 2016, 08:53:30 AM
Why does that even matter in this event, other than a deflection?
Post by: JeffDG on June 12, 2016, 09:01:33 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkwxKttXAAA3QR_.jpg)
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 09:26:54 AM
Islamic terrorism at it's finest. America is under attack, yet this Administration won't address it. This will become workplace violence again.
What would you have him do? This was an American citizen born and raised here, killing other Americans. I'm pretty sure they tried hard to arrest this guy, but he was determined to die in a hail of bullets. Should there be a ban on Islam? Should the government be watching every single thing we do on the internet and then arrest people for going to "bad" sites? Should we deny all Muslims from firearms ownership based on their religion, or if you go to a "bad" website, just to look, be banned from gun purchases?
This isn't Obama's fault. This is Islam's fault. They are the ones that aren't doing enough to purge the violence from their midst. Just as I blame the mother in the Sandy Hook school shooting for being an enabler and clueless about the imminent threat, I blame Islam for being an enabler and clueless about the threats.
Post by: LevelWing on June 12, 2016, 09:27:20 AM
Post by: LevelWing on June 12, 2016, 09:29:30 AM
What would you have him do? This was an American citizen born and raised here, killing other Americans. I'm pretty sure they tried hard to arrest this guy, but he was determined to die in a hail of bullets. Should there be a ban on Islam? Should the government be watching every single thing we do on the internet and then arrest people for going to "bad" sites? Should we deny all Muslims from firearms ownership based on their religion, or if you go to a "bad" website, just to look, be banned from gun purchases?I think what he's saying is that the President won't address the fact that terrorist attacks have happened in the U.S. on his watch and instead tries to blame it on other things. He won't address the actual problem, which is radical Islam.
This isn't Obama's fault. This is Islam's fault. They are the ones that aren't doing enough to purge the violence from their midst. Just as I blame the mother in the Sandy Hook school shooting for being an enabler and clueless about the imminent threat, I blame Islam for being an enabler and clueless about the threats.
Post by: Anthony on June 12, 2016, 09:58:13 AM
I think what he's saying is that the President won't address the fact that terrorist attacks have happened in the U.S. on his watch and instead tries to blame it on other things. He won't address the actual problem, which is radical Islam.
Exactly. How can you combat a problem when you won't admit who is causing it? In addition, this guy may have been a lone wolf, or he may have been run by a foreign entity like ISIS. During the Cold War, we didn't call communist sleeper cells home grown terror. They were foreign run, and known as such.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 10:23:53 AM
One has to admit that the founding fathers probably never ever dreamed of this plague on our society. It would not surprise me if a movement eventually arises to make a new amendment to the Constitution that nullifies the 2nd Amendment.
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 10:38:01 AM
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 10:39:00 AM
Exactly. How can you combat a problem when you won't admit who is causing it? In addition, this guy may have been a lone wolf, or he may have been run by a foreign entity like ISIS. During the Cold War, we didn't call communist sleeper cells home grown terror. They were foreign run, and known as such.
OK, fast forward and Obama is no longer president. Whoever that president is, they call things like this out as Islamic Terrorism. How does labeling it help do anything about it other than make many Americans potentially turn against all Muslims living amongst us? Remember, in theory, the new President is supposed to be bound to uphold the Constitution, so what are they supposed to do?
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 10:40:46 AM
This will really help Hillary get elected. My wife, the Democrat, has her Facebook page open and it is plastered top to bottom with people screaming for gun control with hash tag this and hash tag that. Hillary will be hammering this issue and it's going to put Trump in a hard place because the Democrats have a plan that appeals to a lot of people, but the Republicans are tied to the Constitution and that limits what they can do to combat mass shootings.To the contrary. The Founders believed in self defense, be it personal, or against tyranny. A new amendment to nullify the 2nd will be the next big step towards tyranny.
One has to admit that the founding fathers probably never ever dreamed of this plague on our society. It would not surprise me if a movement eventually arises to make a new amendment to the Constitution that nullifies the 2nd Amendment.
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 10:42:51 AM
OK, fast forward and Obama is no longer president. Whoever that president is, they call things like this out as Islamic Terrorism. How does labeling it help do anything about it other than make many Americans potentially turn against all Muslims living amongst us? Remember, in theory, the new President is supposed to be bound to uphold the Constitution, so what are they supposed to do?Dave, do you not agree that it is critically important to identify four enemy, be it foreign or domestic?
Post by: JeffDG on June 12, 2016, 10:43:37 AM
OK, fast forward and Obama is no longer president. Whoever that president is, they call things like this out as Islamic Terrorism. How does labeling it help do anything about it other than make many Americans potentially turn against all Muslims living amongst us? Remember, in theory, the new President is supposed to be bound to uphold the Constitution, so what are they supposed to do?Personally, I kind of lean towards not calling it "terrorism". Before you jump down my throat, here's why.
Labeling someone a "terrorist" makes it a political crime. Personally, I think these people are just cowardly thugs, and should be treated the same way as any other criminal thug. No reference to their "great cause", simply that they walked into a bar and opened fire on unarmed civilians. Simple, cowardly, murder. That's all it is.
This jackass is not some martyr to his faith. He's a coward and a murderer.
Post by: Mase on June 12, 2016, 10:55:02 AM
This jackass is not some martyr to his faith. He's a coward and a murderer.
And brainwashed and misguided. Plenty of blame to go around. Did he not learn civics and the Constitution in school? Where were his parents? It is reported he swore allegiance to
ISIS. Reportedly, he beat his ex-wife and at one time was a "person of interest."
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 11:19:45 AM
To the contrary. The Founders believed in self defense, be it personal, or against tyranny. A new amendment to nullify the 2nd will be the next big step towards tyranny.
Don't disagree, just saying it would not surprise me. Of course these days politicians just use the SCOTUS to bypass the Constitution, so no need to amend it. They just need a new ruling that defines the 2nd as a collective right and not an individual one.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 11:24:22 AM
Dave, do you not agree that it is critically important to identify four enemy, be it foreign or domestic?
Who hasn't identified it?? Obama knows what's going on, he has a lot of people with intelligence telling him. Radical Islamic Terrorists. So what. What do you now do about it?
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 11:42:21 AM
Personally, I kind of lean towards not calling it "terrorism". Before you jump down my throat, here's why.
Labeling someone a "terrorist" makes it a political crime. Personally, I think these people are just cowardly thugs, and should be treated the same way as any other criminal thug. No reference to their "great cause", simply that they walked into a bar and opened fire on unarmed civilians. Simple, cowardly, murder. That's all it is.
This jackass is not some martyr to his faith. He's a coward and a murderer.
And this is exactly Obama's position. The folks that say Obama is to blame for not labeling tragedies like this as "Radical Islamic Terrorism" really just want a fight with Muslims. Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram all want a "holy war" to break out and that's why they attack us. They really want Americans to rise up and attack Muslims everywhere. Obama is trying to defuse this potential outcome by omitting "Islam" from the title. He knows that in the minds of Americans, "Radical Islamic Terrorism" quickly turns to "Islamic Terrorism" and that leads to civil war and chaos inside America as non Muslims turn on all things Islam.
I agree with Obama's strategy. It likely will only prolong the inevitable though. What's really needed is a world wide Islamic reformation conducted by the highest Imams from all countries that deal with the nasty bits in the Quran that seem to inspire all this grief. I don't see this happening. Ever.
Post by: bflynn on June 12, 2016, 01:17:41 PM
OK, fast forward and Obama is no longer president. Whoever that president is, they call things like this out as Islamic Terrorism. How does labeling it help do anything about it other than make many Americans potentially turn against all Muslims living amongst us? Remember, in theory, the new President is supposed to be bound to uphold the Constitution, so what are they supposed to do?
Labeling them makes the rest of the Muslim community own up to their problem. Their ego makes it unlikely they would accept condemnation from outside the Islamic community. As long as we refuse to call it Islamic terrorism, we play into their goals because we enable them to have free movement and access to everything in the United States that makes it easier for them to carry out attacks.
If we had never confronted people with the KKK, if we had called them "dissenters" or "workplace violence", would the Klan have ever stopped murdering people and blowing things up?
I regret that so many people were forced to stand like cows in a slaughterhouse rather than being afforded an opportunity defend themselves.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 12, 2016, 02:45:30 PM
To the contrary. The Founders believed in self defense, be it personal, or against tyranny. A new amendment to nullify the 2nd will be the next big step towards tyranny.
That will be decided depending on which side wins the 2nd American Civil War.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 12, 2016, 02:46:38 PM
Don't disagree, just saying it would not surprise me. Of course these days politicians just use the SCOTUS to bypass the Constitution, so no need to amend it. They just need a new ruling that defines the 2nd as a collective right and not an individual one.
Let's do that with the First amendment, see how far it gets.
Post by: Kristin on June 12, 2016, 02:59:28 PM
[/quote]
Islam is what Islam does. Right now, Islam is not widely enough interpreted by its adherents as a peaceful religion. That is why it needs a reformation. It probably will not have a reformation until it gets uncomfortable to be a Muslim and someone nails the proverbial paper to the door of the Mosque, figuratively speaking.
When a kid grows up in this country with its opportunities, is raised Islamic, and then goes off to wage Jihad in some form or fashion, there is something wrong with the upbringing and the community from which he came.
Now perhaps this guy was just a homophobic psycho and the religion doesn't really play into it in this case. Time will tell. Apparently religion really did play a big role in the San Bernardino shootings.
Post by: bflynn on June 12, 2016, 04:20:17 PM
By "their religion", I mean the religion of fundamentalist Muslims.
Muslims everywhere endorse this with their silence. I condemn them for that as well.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 12, 2016, 04:24:21 PM
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 04:39:56 PM
[quote author=Dav8or link=topic=984.msg17193#msg17193 date=1465756941I agree with Obama's strategy. It likely will only prolong the inevitable though. What's really needed is a world wide Islamic reformation conducted by the highest Imams from all countries that deal with the nasty bits in the Quran that seem to inspire all this grief. I don't see this happening. Ever.
Islam is what Islam does. Right now, Islam is not widely enough interpreted by its adherents as a peaceful religion. That is why it needs a reformation. It probably will not have a reformation until it gets uncomfortable to be a Muslim and someone nails the proverbial paper to the door of the Mosque, figuratively speaking.
When a kid grows up in this country with its opportunities, is raised Islamic, and then goes off to wage Jihad in some form or fashion, there is something wrong with the upbringing and the community from which he came.
Now perhaps this guy was just a homophobic psycho and the religion doesn't really play into it in this case. Time will tell. Apparently religion really did play a big role in the San Bernardino shootings.
OK, so Islam might explain the problem with this monster, but what about all the home grown mass shooters before him? It seems there is a certain number of people that want to go out an massacre defenseless people with, or without religion. They just need an excuse and religion is but one of many to choose from.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 04:42:22 PM
Let's do that with the First amendment, see how far it gets.
Trust me, they will.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 04:47:09 PM
Dude was interviewed twice by the FBI.
And this is the great big conundrum law enforcement has. They know they have a bad apple, but until that person actually commits a crime, they can't just throw them in the dungeon and they can't just strip them of their constitutional rights. Chances are, this killer got his guns legally, but I don't know for sure. This is why this kind of crime is so tough to prevent. Often it is the very first and very last crime they will ever commit.
Post by: Kristin on June 12, 2016, 04:53:05 PM
OK, so Islam might explain the problem with this monster, but what about all the home grown mass shooters before him? It seems there is a certain number of people that want to go out an massacre defenseless people with, or without religion. They just need an excuse and religion is but one of many to choose from.
As I said, upbringing and community. I didn't limit my comments to Islam, though certainly that has been a factor in some of these mass killings. We need to do something about our mental health care system as the first priority.
Post by: WildEye on June 12, 2016, 05:12:53 PM
The Religion of Peace strikes again.
Yeah like Christianity never had blood on it's hands !!
Post by: LevelWing on June 12, 2016, 05:13:53 PM
One has to admit that the founding fathers probably never ever dreamed of this plague on our society. It would not surprise me if a movement eventually arises to make a new amendment to the Constitution that nullifies the 2nd Amendment.Good luck. You will never get rid of guns in this country, and for good reason, no matter how hard you try. You think there's a problem now with people who have guns that shouldn't? Repeal the Second Amendment and see how many actually voluntarily turn their guns in. Some will, most won't.
Post by: WildEye on June 12, 2016, 05:19:24 PM
This jackass is not some martyr to his faith. He's a coward and a murderer.
100% agree.
Stop showing his photo and mentioning his name on ALL media, he is a murdering thug, who wanted fame for this act.
Personally - I would do my best not to give this murder that respect of having a proper funeral and go the cremation route, as that is forbidden and probably "blocks" his entrance into paradise.
But that's just me.
Post by: LevelWing on June 12, 2016, 05:19:39 PM
Yeah like Christianity never had blood on it's hands !!They do, but it's been a while. If you count the IRA then that's probably the most recent Christian terrorism, otherwise it's been even longer. But you don't see Christians running around blowing up places and killing people these days. There isn't a version of Christianity that preaches the killing of innocents because they don't believe in the Bible.
Post by: WildEye on June 12, 2016, 05:24:47 PM
They do, but it's been a while. If you count the IRA then that's probably the most recent Christian terrorism, otherwise it's been even longer. But you don't see Christians running around blowing up places and killing people these days. There isn't a version of Christianity that preaches the killing of innocents because they don't believe in the Bible.
True but we can ignore that OUR faith did it. Matthew 7:1-3
Post by: JeffDG on June 12, 2016, 05:40:11 PM
Let's do that with the First amendment, see how far it gets.If I were to propose one change to the Constitution with respect to "mass shootings" it would be (and no, I'm not really proposing this, but it would be more effective than the gun-grabbers):
"No person may publish the name of any person who commits mass murder."
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 12, 2016, 05:40:16 PM
my God, some people are idiots.
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 05:44:11 PM
Who hasn't identified it?? Obama knows what's going on, he has a lot of people with intelligence telling him. Radical Islamic Terrorists. So what. What do you now do about it?NOT calling the enemy "radical Islam" is to deny our leaders and military and law enforcement the tools to attack the enemy at its core.
Thus my wife's 95-year old grandmother gets wanded by TSA and told to stand on one foot so they can wand the soles of her shoes.
Post by: Little Joe on June 12, 2016, 05:58:57 PM
Yeah like Christianity never had blood on it's hands !!List the 10 most recent similar examples you can think of?
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 06:20:53 PM
That will be decided depending on which side wins the 2nd American Civil War.That is pathetically sad. It is also directly on point.
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 06:26:25 PM
OK, so Islam might explain the problem with this monster, but what about all the home grown mass shooters before him? It seems there is a certain number of people that want to go out an massacre defenseless people with, or without religion. They just need an excuse and religion is but one of many to choose from.The similarity between this guy and Timothy McVeigh is precisely naught.
To make a moral equivalency and to ignore the common thread with ISLAMIC terrorism is foolish and dangerous.
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 06:35:53 PM
Yeah like Christianity never had blood on it's hands !!Are you making a moral equivalency between the Crusades, which were to fight back the Islamic horde, and the terrorism brought by radical Islam in the last 50 years?
Moral equivalency. You must have been taught in the public schools.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 12, 2016, 06:45:29 PM
And this is the great big conundrum law enforcement has. They know they have a bad apple, but until that person actually commits a crime, they can't just throw them in the dungeon and they can't just strip them of their constitutional rights. Chances are, this killer got his guns legally, but I don't know for sure. This is why this kind of crime is so tough to prevent. Often it is the very first and very last crime they will ever commit.
My understanding at this point is he worked for a security company the provided security for federal buildings. I guess he got his gun legally.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/omar-mateen-worked-for-company-that-provides-security-to-federal-buildings.php
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 06:47:51 PM
Labeling them makes the rest of the Muslim community own up to their problem. Their ego makes it unlikely they would accept condemnation from outside the Islamic community. As long as we refuse to call it Islamic terrorism, we play into their goals because we enable them to have free movement and access to everything in the United States that makes it easier for them to carry out attacks.
If we had never confronted people with the KKK, if we had called them "dissenters" or "workplace violence", would the Klan have ever stopped murdering people and blowing things up?
I regret that so many people were forced to stand like cows in a slaughterhouse rather than being afforded an opportunity defend themselves.
There is a big difference between the Klan and Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and non violent. They are also everywhere in every part of the country numbering in the millions. The Klan was and is a small number of violent idiots isolated to pretty much one part of the country.
Let's suppose hypothetically that president Trump goes on television and starts spouting "Islam" in his usual delicate, sensitive way. Can you see how this would symbolize the official US position on Muslims and Islam? Basically, to radicalized Americans, this would signal open season on Muslims. It would legitimize many's fears that Islam and Muslims are a dire threat to Christians and the American way of life. We would have shootings and bombings at Mosques and where every Muslims might be found in America.
The persecution of Muslims in America would likely trigger the holy war world wide that many seem to desire so bad. I for one do not want to see this happen as it will likely go sideways and end very, very badly for everyone living everywhere. Let's not go there. Back room pressure on Muslim leaders is likely more effective than open public shaming IMO.
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 06:49:58 PM
They do, but it's been a while. If you count the IRA then that's probably the most recent Christian terrorism, otherwise it's been even longer. But you don't see Christians running around blowing up places and killing people these days. There isn't a version of Christianity that preaches the killing of innocents because they don't believe in the Bible.The Battle between the Irish Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland was a political war for regarding British rule of a portion of Ireland.
And you are correct, no version of Christianity calls for the killing of anyone.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 06:50:09 PM
As I said, upbringing and community. I didn't limit my comments to Islam, though certainly that has been a factor in some of these mass killings. We need to do something about our mental health care system as the first priority.
Agreed. We are collectively ignoring and trivializing a very dangerous element of society unique to the modern age.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 06:53:51 PM
Good luck. You will never get rid of guns in this country, and for good reason, no matter how hard you try. You think there's a problem now with people who have guns that shouldn't? Repeal the Second Amendment and see how many actually voluntarily turn their guns in. Some will, most won't.
True. This has been the case in every country that has ever tied confiscation. I'm not endorsing the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, I'm just saying that is were we are headed with every new mass killing.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 06:58:24 PM
NOT calling the enemy "radical Islam" is to deny our leaders and military and law enforcement the tools to attack the enemy at its core.
Thus my wife's 95-year old grandmother gets wanded by TSA and told to stand on one foot so they can wand the soles of her shoes.
Really??? So the president says the word Islam on TV and that gives the military and law enforcement the go ahead to start kicking in doors?? What are these "tools" they need that they don't have right now? What part of the constitution are you willing to sacrifice to get the evil murderers amongst us?
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 07:04:45 PM
The similarity between this guy and Timothy McVeigh is precisely naught.
To make a moral equivalency and to ignore the common thread with ISLAMIC terrorism is foolish and dangerous.
Who said anything specifically about Timothy McVeigh and why is it exactly naught?? The same exact same result. Dead innocent Americans. It is a moral equivalency, unless you believe McVeigh was justified in his actions I suppose.
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 07:16:10 PM
There is a big difference between the Klan and Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and non violent. They are also everywhere in every part of the country numbering in the millions. The Klan was and is a small number of violent idiots isolated to pretty much one part of the country.I'm sorry, but that CAN'T be the criteria with which we fail to identify the enemy.
Let's suppose hypothetically that president Trump goes on television and starts spouting "Islam" in his usual delicate, sensitive way. Can you see how this would symbolize the official US position on Muslims and Islam? Basically, to radicalized Americans, this would signal open season on Muslims. It would legitimize many's fears that Islam and Muslims are a dire threat to Christians and the American way of life. We would have shootings and bombings at Mosques and where every Muslims might be found in America.
The persecution of Muslims in America would likely trigger the holy war world wide that many seem to desire so bad. I for one do not want to see this happen as it will likely go sideways and end very, very badly for everyone living everywhere. Let's not go there. Back room pressure on Muslim leaders is likely more effective than open public shaming IMO.
Would you have Roosevelt never use the words "ImperialJapanese" or "Nazi Germans"?
Anyone who terrorizes a Mosque should be charged and tried like Islamic terrorists. And I don't think we would have a shortage of LEOs and prosecutors who would follow the law and do just that.
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 07:17:31 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637842/Obama-calls-gun-control-action-DOESN-T-link-Orlando-terror-attack-Islam-address-nation.html
Post by: bflynn on June 12, 2016, 07:31:23 PM
And you are correct, no version of Christianity calls for the killing of anyone.
No, you are both incorrect. The Klu Klux Klan identifies as a Christian group, their full name is the "Christian Knights of the Klu Klux Klan". Their version of Christianity calls for killing certain groups they identify as mortal enemies. Now, whether YOU consider them Christian or not is not the point. You can deny it, but when they stand up and declare themselves Christian, all Christians get painted with their brush until we completely denounced them.
The same thing happens to Muslims except that very few of them deny it. Muslims all over the world own this violence. They endorse it as much by their silence as by their celebration.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 07:39:42 PM
I'm sorry, but that CAN'T be the criteria with which we fail to identify the enemy.
Would you have Roosevelt never use the words "ImperialJapanese" or "Nazi Germans"?
Anyone who terrorizes a Mosque should be charged and tried like Islamic terrorists. And I don't think we would have a shortage of LEOs and prosecutors who would follow the law and do just that.
Great example!! The first thing we did with the "Imperial Japanese" was round up all of Japanese decent in our country, put them in concentration camps and steal all their shit. Is that what you would have us do now with the Muslims?
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 08:47:56 PM
Great example!! The first thing we did with the "Imperial Japanese" was round up all of Japanese decent in our country, put them in concentration camps and steal all their shit. Is that what you would have us do now with the Muslims?Nice dodge. You were implying vigilantism as a reason not to identify radical Islamic terrorism. An unlawful executive order regarding a West Coast Japanese is not the same thing.
And by the way, they weren't concentration camps. The dad of one of my grade school classmates was one of the 30,000 children in those camps. I know a little about this. Was it great? Of course not. Was it like Buchenwald? Not even in the same universe.
Post by: Kristin on June 12, 2016, 09:44:01 PM
Agreed. We are collectively ignoring and trivializing a very dangerous element of society unique to the modern age.
Modern society, at least in the U.S. but apparently elsewhere in the western work, seems to breed a certain percentage of disaffected individuals, even though they have all the advantages. It would seem that this merits some significant study and attention on a sociological and psychological level. I don't see any evidence of that really happening, but am hoping I am just missing it.
In the Orlando case, it is impossible to know if he was a loose cannon looking for an excuse or whether he was a lost soul who was pumped up and given a mission to kill. If we had answers to these questions we might better know what we as a society should do about it.
Post by: Mase on June 12, 2016, 09:57:10 PM
In the Orlando case, it is impossible to know if he was a loose cannon looking for an excuse or whether he was a lost soul who was pumped up and given a mission to kill. If we had answers to these questions we might better know what we as a society should do about it.
The investigation may put the uncertainty to rest. And both of these possibilities may be true.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 12, 2016, 10:51:19 PM
When I learned of this shooting, I immediately thought, this is going to make the Left's head hurt. A favored class slaughtering another favored class! Puts a kink in the holiness spiral!
From another site:
"I have developed a marked antipathy towards Islam, its tactical hypocrisy, its barbaric ways, its shameful treatment of women, its stated resistance to assimilation... and I don't want it here. Because masochistic sheep is really and truly "not who we are." Want to be statistically safe from jihad attacks? Out with them all. It's the only way."
Post by: WildEye on June 12, 2016, 11:51:34 PM
List the 10 most recent similar examples you can think of?
Timothy James McVeigh
Ted Kaczynski
Eric Rudolph
Wade Michael Page
Shelly Shannon
Jim David Adkisson
Paul Jennings Hill
John C. Salvi
Robert Lewis Dear
Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer
Dylann Storm Roof
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 13, 2016, 03:25:05 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 13, 2016, 03:28:29 AM
Post by: nddons on June 13, 2016, 04:53:05 AM
How does a guy that was on the FBI's radar get a job with a security company that allows him to legally own a firearm?Guarding FEDERAL buildings I understand. And they want US to disarm?
Post by: Anthony on June 13, 2016, 04:56:34 AM
Chances are, this killer got his guns legally, but I don't know for sure. This is why this kind of crime is so tough to prevent. Often it is the very first and very last crime they will ever commit.
The killer was a security guard that worked at Federal installations for a private security firm. Yes, he got the guns legally, and had a Florida license to conceal carry as part of his job.
Quote
Mateen was a security guard who had a license to carry a firearm, according to records at the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
According to CBS News, he worked for G4S, a private security firm based in Jupiter, and had been on its payroll since 2007.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-omar-mateen-orlando-nightclub-shooting-story.html
Post by: Little Joe on June 13, 2016, 05:03:42 AM
Timothy James McVeighAre you saying that all of those were inspired by their Christian beliefs, and their desires to kill those of other faiths or those that don't live by the Christian scriptures?
Ted Kaczynski
Eric Rudolph
Wade Michael Page
Shelly Shannon
Jim David Adkisson
Paul Jennings Hill
John C. Salvi
Robert Lewis Dear
Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer
Dylann Storm Roof
Post by: Little Joe on June 13, 2016, 05:07:24 AM
Kristin is right. But the Muslims won't reform before 2A goes away, if ever.They won't see it, or translate it like that. They will claim that it was the guns that killed people and we must ban guns.
When I learned of this shooting, I immediately thought, this is going to make the Left's head hurt. A favored class slaughtering another favored class! Puts a kink in the holiness spiral!
Then they will have to ban bombs.
Then knives.
Then ropes.
Then bad language.
Then bad thoughts.
Post by: Little Joe on June 13, 2016, 05:24:44 AM
Quote
On one occasion, Gilroy said, Mateen told him, "I would just like to kill all those [n-words]" after a conversation between Mateen and a black man. "A few times he mentioned homosexuals and Jewish people," Gilroy said, "but we didn't deal with them quite as often, so it was mostly women and blacks, because those were the people in front of us."http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/13/owner-gay-club-says-orlando-gunman-reached-out-to-him-on-facebook.html
Gilroy told Florida Today that he complained to his superiors several times about Mateen, but they refused to take action because, Gilroy claimed, Mateen was Muslim.
Post by: Anthony on June 13, 2016, 05:38:33 AM
This guys should have been fired, and flagged, yet he wasn't.
Post by: LevelWing on June 13, 2016, 06:05:44 AM
How does a guy that was on the FBI's radar get a job with a security company that allows him to legally own a firearm?He wasn't convicted of a crime and thus able to purchase the weapons. This is a very slippery slope. If we say that he should've lost his ability to purchase a firearm because he was interviewed by the FBI because of his supposed connections or what have you, then it becomes all too easy to prevent others who are otherwise legally able to purchase firearms from doing so. If we can do that to Muslims, then what stops the government from preventing conservatives? The IRS was targeting conservative groups who applied for tax exemptions, this would only be an extension of that. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, but that suggestion is out there and it's a very dangerous road to go down.
Post by: Anthony on June 13, 2016, 06:13:38 AM
He wasn't convicted of a crime and thus able to purchase the weapons. This is a very slippery slope. If we say that he should've lost his ability to purchase a firearm because he was interviewed by the FBI because of his supposed connections or what have you, then it becomes all too easy to prevent others who are otherwise legally able to purchase firearms from doing so. If we can do that to Muslims, then what stops the government from preventing conservatives? The IRS was targeting conservative groups who applied for tax exemptions, this would only be an extension of that. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, but that suggestion is out there and it's a very dangerous road to go down.
^^^^^All true. This is a very important point. I don't have an answer.
Post by: Number7 on June 13, 2016, 06:39:54 AM
That is pathetically sad. It is also directly on point.
...and when it comes, relativists and progressives will cheer like the psychotic idiots they are for total government thought control.
Post by: Number7 on June 13, 2016, 06:42:05 AM
Really??? So the president says the word Islam on TV and that gives the military and law enforcement the go ahead to start kicking in doors?? What are these "tools" they need that they don't have right now? What part of the constitution are you willing to sacrifice to get the evil murderers amongst us?
You are really and truly blind to the way the current regime has tied the hands of the military and civilian authorities with regards to never offending Muslims by treating their pigs exactly as they deserve.
Post by: Anthony on June 13, 2016, 06:46:28 AM
You are really and truly blind to the way the current regime has tied the hands of the military and civilian authorities with regards to never offending Muslims by treating their pigs exactly as they deserve.
In addition, they continue to import Muslims at an alarming rate, and distributing them around the country. Who knows how many are terrorists or potential terrorists? The can not be vetted properly. There are no records in Syria. The Administration is also promoting illegal entry at our southern border where terrorists are mixed in with Latinos who to a degree are criminals, and gang members. Where do you think MS-13 comes from?
Post by: WildEye on June 13, 2016, 08:29:46 AM
How does a guy that was on the FBI's radar get a job with a security company that allows him to legally own a firearm?
Second amendment baby !!
Wasn't a felony , cleared 3 times after investigations..... he had every god given right to have one or more, just like the rest of us.
You cant be selective to who it applies to just because he/she/it, does not share the same moral compass as you.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 13, 2016, 09:36:30 AM
He wasn't convicted of a crime and thus able to purchase the weapons. This is a very slippery slope. If we say that he should've lost his ability to purchase a firearm because he was interviewed by the FBI because of his supposed connections or what have you, then it becomes all too easy to prevent others who are otherwise legally able to purchase firearms from doing so. If we can do that to Muslims, then what stops the government from preventing conservatives? The IRS was targeting conservative groups who applied for tax exemptions, this would only be an extension of that. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, but that suggestion is out there and it's a very dangerous road to go down.
Are you aware of why he was on the FBI's radar and was interviewed?
Post by: LevelWing on June 13, 2016, 10:25:14 AM
Are you aware of why he was on the FBI's radar and was interviewed?Likely for possible ties to a radical Islamic group or ISIS. Are you suggesting he should've been deprived of his civil liberties for being interviewed?
Post by: acrogimp on June 13, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
Second amendment baby !!I think the concern here is that this guy may have been 'cleared' not because he was not a threat, but rather as a result of a pervasive culture within Federal law enforcement management types that prevented him being accurately identified as a potential threat from PC concerns and a related fear of being accused of being fill-in-the-blank-ist.
Wasn't a felony , cleared 3 times after investigations..... he had every god given right to have one or more, just like the rest of us.
You cant be selective to who it applies to just because he/she/it, does not share the same moral compass as you.
Cars kill 2.5 times as many people, each and every day. Hot tubs and swimming pools kill about 4,000 a year, mainly infants and children.
Had there been a legal (or even illegal) concealed carry on the premises the end result may have been much, much different and far less tragic since these guys almost always fold once they face any return fire.
Kudo's by the way to Pink Pistols and other gun rights advocates for putting the focus where it belongs, on the terrorist and the 7th century mindset that justified his attack.
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on June 13, 2016, 11:53:40 AM
I think the concern here is that this guy may have been 'cleared' not because he was not a threat, but rather as a result of a pervasive culture within Federal law enforcement management types that prevented him being accurately identified as a potential threat from PC concerns and a related fear of being accused of being fill-in-the-blank-ist.With a little footwork, the Feds could get RICO Act prosecutions for Islamic radicalization of Americans. But that goes against Obama's Religion of Peace narrative, so guys like this terrorist walk because they weren't caught actively doing something.
Cars kill 2.5 times as many people, each and every day. Hot tubs and swimming pools kill about 4,000 a year, mainly infants and children.
Had there been a legal (or even illegal) concealed carry on the premises the end result may have been much, much different and far less tragic since these guys almost always fold once they face any return fire.
Kudo's by the way to Pink Pistols and other gun rights advocates for putting the focus where it belongs, on the terrorist and the 7th century mindset that justified his attack.
'Gimp
Post by: bflynn on June 13, 2016, 12:12:46 PM
Are you aware of why he was on the FBI's radar and was interviewed?
I am, but I have to agree that being under investigation or even being accused of something is no grounds for removal of Constitutional rights. If you can remove 2nd Amendment rights on an accusation, then why not others, say the 5th and 6th?
Oh wait - we've done those already.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 13, 2016, 03:49:23 PM
Quote
But the investigation was shut down under pressure from the Clinton-ran State Dept. (http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/orlando-mosque-tied-to-case-hillarys-state-dept-scrubbed/) and DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office out of fear of offending Muslims
I know Hillary has to step carefully with the Muslims because she and Bill count on Muslim money to help fund their lifestyle.
Post by: LevelWing on June 13, 2016, 05:11:03 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-those-under-fbi-investigation-should-be-presumed-guilty/
Post by: Little Joe on June 13, 2016, 05:15:32 PM
Hillary Clinton apparently believes that if you're under investigation by the FBI for terrorist connections you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun, depriving them of civil liberties:I'm guessing that the author of the article thought the irony was too self-evident to have to mention:]
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-those-under-fbi-investigation-should-be-presumed-guilty/
Quote
Hillary Clinton: Those Under FBI Investigation Should Be Presumed Guilty
So tell me again, isn't Hillary under investigation by the FBI?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 13, 2016, 05:41:02 PM
yeah, stuff that happened hundreds of year ago justifies the crap today
my God, some people are idiots.
Correction: A LOT of people (esp on the Left) are idiots.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 13, 2016, 05:42:17 PM
My understanding at this point is he worked for a security company the provided security for federal buildings. I guess he got his gun legally.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/omar-mateen-worked-for-company-that-provides-security-to-federal-buildings.php
How many of these people work for TSA...?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 13, 2016, 05:44:20 PM
Well, your president wasted no time to place the blame on guns. Fucker.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3637842/Obama-calls-gun-control-action-DOESN-T-link-Orlando-terror-attack-Islam-address-nation.html
Calling him a fucker is an insult to fuckers.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 13, 2016, 05:49:21 PM
I did see the CAIR guy on TV making a little speech denouncing what the guy did, etc. I'll give them some credit for that.He had his fingers crossed behind his back.
Plus the Koran permits the faithful to lie to the infidels.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 13, 2016, 05:50:17 PM
How does a guy that was on the FBI's radar get a job with a security company that allows him to legally own a firearm?
He was in a protected class.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 13, 2016, 05:55:40 PM
I think the concern here is that this guy may have been 'cleared' not because he was not a threat, but rather as a result of a pervasive culture within Federal law enforcement management types that prevented him being accurately identified as a potential threat from PC concerns and a related fear of being accused of being fill-in-the-blank-ist.
The buck stops at the desk of the Muslim in Chief.
Post by: JeffDG on June 14, 2016, 05:30:19 AM
Afterwards, I said to her..."Those reporters were wrong. The shooter is not 'sick' in any way. He was evil, plain and simple. It bugs me when people try to say such evil people are sick, as if they have some disease and cannot control themselves. Evil exists in the world."
Post by: JeffDG on June 14, 2016, 05:39:09 AM
Post by: Anthony on June 14, 2016, 05:47:44 AM
Post by: Little Joe on June 14, 2016, 05:52:17 AM
I watched the news last night with my 12 year old daughter. She's pretty upset with this whole thing.The shooter was not sick. Society is sick. The shooter was the disease, like a cancer. The cure for society is to destroy the disease.
Afterwards, I said to her..."Those reporters were wrong. The shooter is not 'sick' in any way. He was evil, plain and simple. It bugs me when people try to say such evil people are sick, as if they have some disease and cannot control themselves. Evil exists in the world."
Post by: Little Joe on June 14, 2016, 05:53:45 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tom-g-palmer-wake-orlando-gays-arm-article-1.2671568Has anyone seen jubilation over this act?
I haven't. But just by saying i.e. The author is making things worse.
Post by: PaulS on June 14, 2016, 05:59:20 AM
Another tragedy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/florida-gay-nightclub-shooting-injuries-reported-at-pulse-orland/
I wonder what the toll would have been if even one or two other patrons had a gun.
Great post, I agree, even if the bar tenders had been armed it would have been a much different outcome.
Post by: JeffDG on June 14, 2016, 06:26:07 AM
Post by: Dav8or on June 14, 2016, 07:44:18 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tom-g-palmer-wake-orlando-gays-arm-article-1.2671568
Great opinion piece! Spot on, but sadly the folks on the left that are part of the gun banning group see people like the author here as being just as sick and the monster Mateen. They see people like this as part of the problem, not the solution. His writings will fall upon deaf ears to those that most need to hear it.
Post by: Anthony on June 14, 2016, 08:00:44 AM
Post by: LevelWing on June 14, 2016, 08:05:27 AM
Guns sales, and CCW permits have set records the past several years. Many are first time gun owners, and women. I see many more women at my range the past few years than ever. That is GREAT. Many now realize that the police can't protect them, and it is up to them to lower the risk of harm.Democrats are great gun salesmen.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 09:18:03 AM
He had his fingers crossed behind his back.Prove it
Plus the Koran permits the faithful to lie to the infidels.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 09:19:36 AM
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 09:23:22 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639961/Orlando-terrorist-went-gay-club-Pulse-dozen-times-got-drunk-belligerent-talked-wife-kid-massacring-49-people-there.html
Quote
'Omar Mateen was gay': Orlando terrorist pursued a relationship with male classmate, was a regular at gay bars including Pulse for the past decade, and used hookup apps like Grindr to meet men
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 14, 2016, 09:59:25 AM
Guns sales, and CCW permits have set records the past several years. Many are first time gun owners, and women. I see many more women at my range the past few years than ever. That is GREAT. Many now realize that the police can't protect them, and it is up to them to lower the risk of harm.Police are not under any obligation to protect anyone (except themselves and pols), they are there only to enforce laws and make reports.
Post by: Mase on June 14, 2016, 10:05:29 AM
"President Obama’s predictable reaction to the latest heinous, unprovoked terrorist massacre of innocent citizens on American soil would be embarrassing if it weren’t so disgraceful. This man’s term can’t end quickly enough.
There is just no excuse for Obama’s warped moral compass — the way he excuses the culpable. And his judgments are not happening in a vacuum; they are guiding his policies, which are leading to more, not fewer, attacks against us.
After the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States — at the hands of an Islamic terrorist at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub — Obama couldn’t sprint to the lectern fast enough to tell Americans not to believe our lying eyes, saying we should view this slaughter through his perverse prism...."
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 14, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Prove it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
Your move.
Post by: Anthony on June 14, 2016, 11:01:18 AM
Police are not under any obligation to protect anyone (except themselves and pols), they are there only to enforce laws and make reports.
I know, but does the general public know that? I think they are wising up.
Post by: nddons on June 14, 2016, 11:46:01 AM
I'm seeing in other sources that people are saying that the police came into the bar with guns ablazing and they are responsible for upping the body count.What sources are those?
Post by: nddons on June 14, 2016, 12:14:00 PM
Who said this was terrorism????Sooo, being gay invalidates this being treated as an act of terrorism?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639961/Orlando-terrorist-went-gay-club-Pulse-dozen-times-got-drunk-belligerent-talked-wife-kid-massacring-49-people-there.html
Post by: LevelWing on June 14, 2016, 12:40:23 PM
Who said this was terrorism????The shooter called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS when he entered the night club.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639961/Orlando-terrorist-went-gay-club-Pulse-dozen-times-got-drunk-belligerent-talked-wife-kid-massacring-49-people-there.html
Post by: Dav8or on June 14, 2016, 01:28:27 PM
Who said this was terrorism????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639961/Orlando-terrorist-went-gay-club-Pulse-dozen-times-got-drunk-belligerent-talked-wife-kid-massacring-49-people-there.html
It is terrorism due to the pledge to ISIS. However if this article is accurate and I have no reason to disbelieve it, it makes the whole situation more complicated. Clearly the roots of his destruction started a long time ago and likely has nothing to do with any international organized terror group. I does appear to have a lot to do with Islam though. From the article-
Quote
King, who characterized Mateen as friendly and talkative, said: 'Something must have changed.'
The article paints a pretty clear picture of a deeply closeted gay man leading a dual life and struggling with it. Imagine growing up in a household where your father was a Taliban supporter and sympathizer. That had to be a pretty strict Islamic household. Then imagine coming of age and realizing that you are gay, one of the very types of people Islam hates. Leading a dual life to cope with it must have been very challenging and depressing.
To get back to the quote above, what changed was a very deeply conflicted man with strong Islamic roots found ISIS. It will be interesting to learn if any actual communication with ISIS operatives occurred, or whether he was just inspired to act by ISIS propaganda. It makes sense to me that he would choose to strike at the part of his life that gave him so much turmoil and widely considered to be perverse (quite incorrectly IMO) and abnormal.
Now the right will hold this up as proof of the ISIS threat and the Left will hold this up as a deranged lone gunman and why ordinary citizens shouldn't have access to guns. Both have elements of truth in them.
Post by: bflynn on June 14, 2016, 02:21:14 PM
Do you remember Philip Haney, the DHS whistleblower who said that the State dept killed his investigation into the radical mosque that the San Bernadino shooters attended? Well it turns out that the Fort Pierce Islamic center and the Orlando shooter himself were part of that same investigation. That is two identifiable attacks that could have been stopped and 64 American that could be alive if Hillary and Obama had the balls to call it terrorism. They didn't and the investigations were shut down, leaving the terrorists free to act.
How many more Americans have to die before they would admit that there are Muslim Terrorists?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 02:24:24 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
Your move.
I reject their scholarship for this simple reason:
A Muslim in NEVER permitted to fear anyone other than Allah. Checkmate.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 02:25:41 PM
Sooo, being gay invalidates this being treated as an act of terrorism?
Terrorism has a political, ideological or religious motive. This was a lovers quarrel gone violent. The bar was one of his gay hangouts.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 14, 2016, 02:27:21 PM
Sooo, being gay invalidates this being treated as an act of terrorism?
He was just having a hissy-fit.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 14, 2016, 02:28:33 PM
I reject their scholarship for this simple reason:
A Muslim in NEVER permitted to fear anyone other than Allah. Checkmate.
LMAO
You've been overruled by your own experts.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 02:28:47 PM
The shooter called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS when he entered the night club.
Pledging allegiance to a box of Juicy Fruits doesn't make it so. My first reaction when I heard about a possible ISIS connection (or taking credit) was that this didn't make sense. ISIS' goal (as we're told) is the control of nations. Coming across the Atlantic to shoot up a specific nightclub in Orlando, Florida is not tactically nor strategically sound to further that aim.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 14, 2016, 02:28:57 PM
Terrorism has a political, ideological or religious motive. This was a lovers quarrel gone violent. The bar was one of his gay hangouts.
YGBFSM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 14, 2016, 02:30:12 PM
Pledging allegiance to a box of Juicy Fruits doesn't make it so. My first reaction when I heard about a possible ISIS connection (or taking credit) was that this didn't make sense. ISIS' goal (as we're told) is the control of nations. Coming across the Atlantic to shoot up a specific nightclub in Orlando, Florida is not tactically nor strategically sound to further that aim.You conveniently forget that ISIS claimed this for their own.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 02:32:07 PM
LMAONot my experts. Like I said, I reject that foolish scholarship and anyone that actually reads the article can see the broken links in the logic.
You've been overruled by your own experts.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 02:34:02 PM
You conveniently forget that ISIS claimed this for their own.That's how I originally heard of the story, but as I said it doesn't add up.
They MAY (and I say may, as in possible) wound up a conflicted individual and turned him loose. And by that measure, taken credit for winding him like a wind-up toy.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 02:34:22 PM
YGBFSMHow eloquent of you. smh.
Post by: LevelWing on June 14, 2016, 02:34:35 PM
Pledging allegiance to a box of Juicy Fruits doesn't make it so. My first reaction when I heard about a possible ISIS connection (or taking credit) was that this didn't make sense. ISIS' goal (as we're told) is the control of nations. Coming across the Atlantic to shoot up a specific nightclub in Orlando, Florida is not tactically nor strategically sound to further that aim.Do you reject the notion of radical Islamic terrorism?
The man called 911 and pledged his allegiance to ISIS. Whether or not ISIS directly planned this attack is irrelevant, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was an act of terrorism committed by someone who became radicalized in his religious views. His sexual orientation doesn't change that.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 14, 2016, 02:36:16 PM
YGBFSM
You never answered Stan's inquiry:
"I'm seeing in other sources that people are saying that the police came into the bar with guns ablazing and they are responsible for upping the body count"
Post by: bflynn on June 14, 2016, 02:37:35 PM
Post by: nddons on June 14, 2016, 03:13:26 PM
Terrorism has a political, ideological or religious motive. This was a lovers quarrel gone violent. The bar was one of his gay hangouts.Right. A lovers quarrel that was planned and executed to kill as many people as possible. That's want you call a lovers quarrel?
Post by: Dav8or on June 14, 2016, 03:17:11 PM
Pledging allegiance to a box of Juicy Fruits doesn't make it so. My first reaction when I heard about a possible ISIS connection (or taking credit) was that this didn't make sense. ISIS' goal (as we're told) is the control of nations. Coming across the Atlantic to shoot up a specific nightclub in Orlando, Florida is not tactically nor strategically sound to further that aim.
Really? Then how do explain their going into a night club in Paris and shooting a bunch of people there? How did that strategically help them control a nation? Why did they do that?
Post by: Little Joe on June 14, 2016, 03:55:35 PM
Right. A lovers quarrel that was planned and executed to kill as many people as possible. That's want you call a lovers quarrel?Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Except for a gay man scorned.
Post by: nddons on June 14, 2016, 04:54:15 PM
Pledging allegiance to a box of Juicy Fruits doesn't make it so. My first reaction when I heard about a possible ISIS connection (or taking credit) was that this didn't make sense. ISIS' goal (as we're told) is the control of nations. Coming across the Atlantic to shoot up a specific nightclub in Orlando, Florida is not tactically nor strategically sound to further that aim.Where are we told that their goal is the control of nations? They want to build a caliphate, don't they? That implies that they want to create their own nation, through conquest, and not deal with someone else's nation.
Post by: nddons on June 14, 2016, 06:46:40 PM
Lovers spat? Not even close.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 07:56:28 PM
Do you reject the notion of radical Islamic terrorism?
The man called 911 and pledged his allegiance to ISIS. Whether or not ISIS directly planned this attack is irrelevant, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was an act of terrorism committed by someone who became radicalized in his religious views. His sexual orientation doesn't change that.
This put his ISIS pledge in context
https://www.facebook.com/GYouth4Truth/videos/607880522704020/
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 14, 2016, 07:57:05 PM
It ow sounds like this Jihaddist and his were casing Disney properties back in April, and Disney security told this to the FBI.Possible.
Lovers spat? Not even close.
But it doesn't explain his other gay seeking activities
Post by: nddons on June 14, 2016, 08:06:52 PM
This put his ISIS pledge in context
https://www.facebook.com/GYouth4Truth/videos/607880522704020/
What a compassionate and caring Islamic Jihadist mother fucker. 😡
Post by: nddons on June 14, 2016, 08:07:35 PM
Possible.
But it doesn't explain his other gay seeking activities
What the fuck does that matter?
Post by: Kristin on June 14, 2016, 10:10:06 PM
Possible.
But it doesn't explain his other gay seeking activities
Let's see: gay seeking activities + jihadist activities and associations = jihadist terror attack motivated by the conflict between what is inside him and Islamic condemnation. Seems like we have Islam on both sides of the equation.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 15, 2016, 03:45:56 AM
A question I haven't heard asked. There were north of 100 people in this club. Why were they not able to take this guy down?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 15, 2016, 04:35:32 AM
This is quite the conundrum for the liberals with one protected group killing another protected group. It's got to be tough knowing which protected group to get behind. ;)Very GOOD question!
A question I haven't heard asked. There were north of 100 people in this club. Why were they not able to take this guy down?
It is assumed after 9/11 that the American public would be prepared to fight (and die to protect others if necessary) during a terrorist attack, that the previous "cooperate" doctrine was thrown out the window.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 15, 2016, 04:46:17 AM
Let's see: gay seeking activities + jihadist activities and associations = jihadist terror attack motivated by the conflict between what is inside him and Islamic condemnation. Seems like we have Islam on both sides of the equation.One of the articles I read said that he was in conflict with his father, who had very strong theocratic views.
Not that I agree with it, but there are plenty of Gay Muslim groups in the US and UK. Why didn't he join one of them instead of being tormented by the cognitive dissonance?
I don't have an answer. I don't know all of his story. I do believe that the part about him wanting the US to stop bombing his country plays a central role and is a consistent theme in all attacks.
What did he mean by "his country"? It's my understanding that he's born and reared in the US.!?!???
As a military tactician, what you call terrorism, I call guerilla warfare and it has been shown throughout history to be effective in waging war against a numerically and technologically superior force.
https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/744058605735649/
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 15, 2016, 04:54:51 AM
I'm seeing in other sources that people are saying that the police came into the bar with guns ablazing and they are responsible for upping the body count.
Are these the same type of sources that said he had an automatic weapon?
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 04:56:49 AM
This is quite the conundrum for the liberals with one protected group killing another protected group. It's got to be tough knowing which protected group to get behind. ;)Which helps explain the reflexive diversion to the demonization of and screams of banning "assault weapons."
A question I haven't heard asked. There were north of 100 people in this club. Why were they not able to take this guy down?
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 05:02:47 AM
Are these the same type of sources that said he had an automatic weapon?(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160615/8662ea6da78fbd32bdc9e285595ae928.jpg)
Post by: Little Joe on June 15, 2016, 05:11:50 AM
This is quite the conundrum for the liberals with one protected group killing another protected group. It's got to be tough knowing which protected group to get behind. ;)They will just say they were killed by guns and their solution will be to ban guns.
Quote
A question I haven't heard asked. There were north of 100 people in this club. Why were they not able to take this guy down?It was a gun free zone. And I doubt there was a "real" man in the house.
Post by: Number7 on June 15, 2016, 06:26:01 AM
http://www.infowars.com/hillarys-state-dept-blocked-investigation-into-orlando-killers-mosque/
I know Hillary has to step carefully with the Muslims because she and Bill count on Muslim money to help fund their lifestyle.
Drudge has a story this morning that Saudi Arabia has funded 20% of the doormat's campaign and gave her $18 million dollars while she was Secretary of State. That is criminal no matter how you look at it. She HAS to go to prison.
Post by: Number7 on June 15, 2016, 06:27:52 AM
Has anyone seen jubilation over this act?
I haven't. But just by saying i.e. The author is making things worse.
You mean like this?
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/06/14/isis-praises-mateen-as-lion-of-caliphate-urges-attacks-at-theaters-hospitals-amusement-parks/
(http://ISIS Praises Mateen as 'Lion of Caliphate,' Urges Attacks at Theaters, Hospitals, Amusement Parks)
Post by: Number7 on June 15, 2016, 06:30:33 AM
David Limbaugh Gets It Right (http://www.gopusa.com/?p=11217?omhide=true)
"President Obama’s predictable reaction to the latest heinous, unprovoked terrorist massacre of innocent citizens on American soil would be embarrassing if it weren’t so disgraceful. This man’s term can’t end quickly enough.
There is just no excuse for Obama’s warped moral compass — the way he excuses the culpable. And his judgments are not happening in a vacuum; they are guiding his policies, which are leading to more, not fewer, attacks against us.
After the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States — at the hands of an Islamic terrorist at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub — Obama couldn’t sprint to the lectern fast enough to tell Americans not to believe our lying eyes, saying we should view this slaughter through his perverse prism...."
Anyone who saw and heard the president speak about the shooting knows two things. He is NOT very intelligent and he is all in on protecting his people, which are those that cheer for these types of things, fund them, and faciliatate them.
He needs to be impeached, indicted, convicted and sent to prison.
Post by: JeffDG on June 15, 2016, 07:14:55 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-13/donald-trump-has-called-for-blocking-gun-sales-to-terror-suspects
Post by: asechrest on June 15, 2016, 07:35:40 AM
It's great that the supposedly pro-2A candidate thinks that entry of your name on some list by a 'crat, with no way to correct error, is reason enough to take away your 2A rights.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-13/donald-trump-has-called-for-blocking-gun-sales-to-terror-suspects
"Somebody will say, ‘Oh second amendment, second amendment.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."*
*Words only slightly changed
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 15, 2016, 07:58:36 AM
Very GOOD question!
It is assumed after 9/11 that the American public would be prepared to fight (and die to protect others if necessary) during a terrorist attack, that the previous "cooperate" doctrine was thrown out the window.
The 100 people were unarmed because of state laws. Plus most were probably stoned. also heard a report that exit doors were chained.
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 08:04:24 AM
It's great that the supposedly pro-2A candidate thinks that entry of your name on some list by a 'crat, with no way to correct error, is reason enough to take away your 2A rights.Right in line with Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-13/donald-trump-has-called-for-blocking-gun-sales-to-terror-suspects
This is my biggest problem with him. Anyone with a Constitutional focus would be able to identify in a microsecond how such a statement could be used to create tyranny. Yet Trump reflexively draws on his liberal New York experience when something sounds good and populist and would gain him votes.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 15, 2016, 08:05:28 AM
Which helps explain the reflexive diversion to the demonization of and screams of banning "assault weapons."
Lying fuckheads who enjoy direct protection by people with true assault weapons that can use them with impunity.
Post by: LevelWing on June 15, 2016, 08:14:15 AM
A question I haven't heard asked. There were north of 100 people in this club. Why were they not able to take this guy down?It was a packed night club. Once the shooting started everyone probably panicked and tried to get out and/or seek cover. With that many people running around it can be hard to determine where the shooting was coming from. Plus if the music was still going they may not have been able to hear the actual gun shots, only seeing people run around panicking.
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 08:25:26 AM
Lying fuckheads who enjoy direct protection by people with true assault weapons that can use them with impunity.Exactly. I have a feeling a new proposed (and factually inaccurate) "assault weapons" ban won't go down as easily as the first one, especially since the AR is now the most popular type of rifle in the United States.
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 08:33:21 AM
Right in line with Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc.And for anyone who questions how this could lead to tyranny, THIS is how it could lead to tyranny:
This is my biggest problem with him. Anyone with a Constitutional focus would be able to identify in a microsecond how such a statement could be used to create tyranny. Yet Trump reflexively draws on his liberal New York experience when something sounds good and populist and would gain him votes.
http://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-just-caved-on-gun-control/
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 15, 2016, 08:47:09 AM
Exactly. I have a feeling a new proposed (and factually inaccurate) "assault weapons" ban won't go down as easily as the first one, especially since the AR is now the most popular type of rifle in the United States.
But, "AR" stands for "Automatic Rifle", right? :o
Post by: Number7 on June 15, 2016, 08:50:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMHKO5MC6c
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMHKO5MC6c)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMHKO5MC6c)
Post by: LevelWing on June 15, 2016, 09:52:47 AM
Exactly. I have a feeling a new proposed (and factually inaccurate) "assault weapons" ban won't go down as easily as the first one, especially since the AR is now the most popular type of rifle in the United States.I'll bet sales are skyrocketing after the shooting as well. It always does after incidents like this because people want to A.) protect themselves from future occurrences and B.) they don't want to lose their rights.
Post by: Dav8or on June 15, 2016, 09:58:48 AM
A question I haven't heard asked. There were north of 100 people in this club. Why were they not able to take this guy down?
I guess you would really have to have been there. This guy was actually trained in firearms and tactics and had detailed knowledge of the nightclub's layout. Quite possibly some number of the 50 dead were ones that tried to "take him down". Maybe all citizens should take classes in how to take down armed murdering gunman. Learn how to instinctively run towards bullets, artfully dodge them all, get behind him and give him a swift karate chop to the neck. ::)
I think it's ridiculous to ask this question. Basically now you are trying to place blame for the victims on the victims. Sure, the intelligence and law enforcement agencies let these people down by letting this monster freely operate, sure the US Constitution allows any monster or mad man to obtain tools of mass destruction, sure local ordinances made this a gun free zone and made sure everyone was disarmed, but they should have all rushed him and beaten him to death with their ninja skills, right?? Perhaps the first 50 tried.
BTW, this is the same tactic the armies of Europe tried in WWI. Just run them over with numbers. It turns out a well placed rapid firing gun with a good sized magazine can stop a lot of rushing attackers. Who knew?
Post by: JeffDG on June 15, 2016, 10:05:37 AM
I'll bet sales are skyrocketing after the shooting as well. It always does after incidents like this because people want to A.) protect themselves from future occurrences and B.) they don't want to lose their rights.Esp now with two gun-grabbers as presumptive nominees for the Presidency.
Post by: Dav8or on June 15, 2016, 10:05:49 AM
But, "AR" stands for "Automatic Rifle", right? :o
I thought it stood for Armageddon Reaper? That's what I heard from the firearms experts on MSNBC. ;)
Post by: Dav8or on June 15, 2016, 10:37:24 AM
You HAVE to listen to this ISLAMIC PIECE OF SHIT, claiming that killing homosexuals IS the policy of the make believe moderate muslims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMHKO5MC6c
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMHKO5MC6c)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEMHKO5MC6c)
In all fairness, the Christian Bible contains similar capitol punishments for deviant behavior. The difference is Christians moved on from that 2000 year old crazy train. These fuckers are stupid enough to believe that every single word in their Koran is actual, literal words from Allah and so are true and pure. That is why Islam is dangerous.
There seem to be lots of excuses and special conditions for lying, killing, extorting and suppressing people contained in a book of true, pure words that can only be properly understood by an educated Imam. Of course the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to go out and start killing gays, or non believers because they are not killers, but if one of their kind happens to be a psychopath and does go out and does kill some, they will support them in that action because the good book says it's OK.
This brings up another thorny Constitutional issue. Freedom to practice religion. What if that religion sanctions the killing of certain groups of people? Is it protected under the Constitution? As for the FBI watch list, they can start with every person in that room! They are going to need to do some hiring over at the FBI.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 15, 2016, 11:07:33 AM
I guess you would really have to have been there.
true enough. But that didn't stop you from subsequently making wild-ass guesses and even more ridiculous claims.
I think it's ridiculous to ask this question. Basically now you are trying to place blame for the victims on the victims. Sure, the intelligence and law enforcement agencies let these people down by letting this monster freely operate, sure the US Constitution allows any monster or mad man to obtain tools of mass destruction, sure local ordinances made this a gun free zone and made sure everyone was disarmed, but they should have all rushed him and beaten him to death with their ninja skills, right?? Perhaps the first 50 tried.
BS. It is a perfectly valid question. Do you know what to do in an active shooter situation? I suspect that you don't.
Evade, Hide, but attack when no other option is available (attack is more challenging when only the bad guy has guns - thanks to all the idiots wanting "gun free" zones).
BTW, this is the same tactic the armies of Europe tried in WWI. Just run them over with numbers. It turns out a well placed rapid firing gun with a good sized magazine can stop a lot of rushing attackers. Who knew?
um. No. That is not what was done during WWI. It may look that way in WWI movies.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 15, 2016, 11:25:59 AM
true enough. But that didn't stop you from subsequently making wild-ass guesses and even more ridiculous claims.
BS. It is a perfectly valid question. Do you know what to do in an active shooter situation? I suspect that you don't.
Evade, Hide, but attack when no other option is available (attack is more challenging when only the bad guy has guns - thanks to all the idiots wanting "gun free" zones).
um. No. That is not what was done during WWI. It may look that way in WWI movies.
No attacks have been made on gun stores or police stations.
Muslim jihadists are COWARDS who kill people who can't fight back.
Post by: asechrest on June 15, 2016, 11:41:00 AM
Quote
After 49 people were gunned down in an Orlando gay nightclub in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, pastors in California and Arizona praised the gunman for massacring “perverted predators” and “pedophiles.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-jimenez-steven-anderson-pastors-praise-orlando
Islam isn't the only religion that's used for vile purposes. But it does seem to be one of the worst offenders, in both numbers and scope.
Post by: Little Joe on June 15, 2016, 11:47:42 AM
A couple of "Christian" pastors speak about the massacre:I'll give you credit for qualifying that with "A couple of . . . "
Islam isn't the only religion that's used for vile purposes. But it does seem to be one of the worst offenders, in both numbers and scope.
But the article you linked to said "Pastors praise Orlando Killings . . ." which indicates a siz
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 11:52:14 AM
But, "AR" stands for "Automatic Rifle", right? :o
Actually it stands for Armalite, the company now out of Geneseo, Illinois that came up with the design.
I thought it stood for Armageddon Reaper? That's what I heard from the firearms experts on MSNBC. ;)
I like it!
Post by: Little Joe on June 15, 2016, 11:53:31 AM
A couple of "Christian" pastors speak about the massacre:I'll give you credit for qualifying that with "A couple of . . . "
Islam isn't the only religion that's used for vile purposes. But it does seem to be one of the worst offenders, in both numbers and scope.
But the article you linked to said "Pastors praise Orlando Killings . . ." which indicates a sizeable number, or maybe even a representative sample or a majority praised it. And that shows that the focus of the article was slanted and misleading.
Nobody has ever said that every person in any demographic or religion was 100% in agreement. But when people try to compare the violent and hateful tendencies of current day Christians with current day Muslims, they are trying to make excuses or cover things up. In fact, there is no comparison. The ratio of "radical Islam" to mainstream Islam is far far far greater than a similar Christian Ratio in today's world. And today's world is all that counts today.
Post by: bflynn on June 15, 2016, 11:54:21 AM
I'll give you credit for qualifying that with "A couple of . . . "
But the article you linked to said "Pastors praise Orlando Killings . . ." which indicates a siz
Yes - but let's be clear - there is no place in the Bible that Jesus said "kill them". Anyone who is saying this kind of garbage is NOT a Christian, ie, a follower of Christ's example of how to live. They have been led astray by hate and they must repent of the hate and come back to the path if they wish to rejoin the Christian community.
It's not that hard to say that. I wonder why Muslims are so challenged in it. I guess maybe you have to believe it first?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 15, 2016, 11:58:24 AM
Actually it stands for Armalite, the company now out of Geneseo, Illinois that came up with the design.
I like it!
Lefties think it means "Assault Rifle", which is what I originally meant to post.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 15, 2016, 11:59:20 AM
And that shows that the focus of the article was slanted and misleading.
I'm shocked! Shocked!
Post by: asechrest on June 15, 2016, 12:00:00 PM
I'll give you credit for qualifying that with "A couple of . . . "
But the article you linked to said "Pastors praise Orlando Killings . . ." which indicates a sizeable number, or maybe even a representative sample or a majority praised it. And that shows that the focus of the article was slanted and misleading.
Nobody has ever said that every person in any demographic or religion was 100% in agreement. But when people try to compare the violent and hateful tendencies of current day Christians with current day Muslims, they are trying to make excuses or cover things up. In fact, there is no comparison. The ratio of "radical Islam" to mainstream Islam is far far far greater than a similar Christian Ratio in today's world. And today's world is all that counts today.
It's a liberal news site. Slant expected.
Your point is a good one, which is why I helped make it. (You didn't built that! ;D)
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 15, 2016, 12:05:45 PM
The 100 people were unarmed because of state laws. Plus most were probably stoned. also heard a report that exit doors were chained.If that's true, then the reports I heard about 2 gunman and a 1 doorman is plausible.
I guess you would really have to have been there. This guy was actually trained in firearms and tactics and had detailed knowledge of the nightclub's layout. Quite possibly some number of the 50 dead were ones that tried to "take him down". Maybe all citizens should take classes in how to take down armed murdering gunman. Learn how to instinctively run towards bullets, artfully dodge them all, get behind him and give him a swift karate chop to the neck. ::)
I think it's ridiculous to ask this question. Basically now you are trying to place blame for the victims on the victims. Sure, the intelligence and law enforcement agencies let these people down by letting this monster freely operate, sure the US Constitution allows any monster or mad man to obtain tools of mass destruction, sure local ordinances made this a gun free zone and made sure everyone was disarmed, but they should have all rushed him and beaten him to death with their ninja skills, right?? Perhaps the first 50 tried.
BTW, this is the same tactic the armies of Europe tried in WWI. Just run them over with numbers. It turns out a well placed rapid firing gun with a good sized magazine can stop a lot of rushing attackers. Who knew?
There is some logic to the tactic. The Marines taught me that in defending against a well-executed ambush, you're not supposed to make it out alive. Well guess what?!?!? Most tactics are poorly executed so the defense is to ASSAULT THROUGH, which is counter-intuitive. Some will die, yes but many will live that otherwise would have died in hiding.
In all fairness, the Christian Bible contains similar capitol punishments for deviant behavior. The difference is Christians moved on from that 2000 year old crazy train. These fuckers are stupid enough to believe that every single word in their Koran is actual, literal words from Allah and so are true and pure. That is why Islam is dangerous.Holy Qur'an 3:7
There seem to be lots of excuses and special conditions for lying, killing, extorting and suppressing people contained in a book of true, pure words that can only be properly understood by an educated Imam. Of course the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to go out and start killing gays, or non believers because they are not killers, but if one of their kind happens to be a psychopath and does go out and does kill some, they will support them in that action because the good book says it's OK.
He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation.
I find it very interesting that ignorant people on this forum accept the storyline that Islam is what's motivating these people like wind-up toys. Islam has been around for 1500 years and yet this rash of "Islamic Terrorism" on American soil is only 15 years old and it's on everyone's mind. Ask yourself why? Did something change to the religion? Did some new preacher or Imam unlock the secrets to wind people up like mindless robots?
Islam does not tell Muslims to go about seeking to make War. However Islam is the FIRST (and only that I'm aware of) organized religion that tells it's believers to RETALIATE against violence and oppression and specifically forbids the initiation of hostilities. It tells the Muslim to always seek the way of Peace, but where violence is found against you to fight in the Name of Allah against violence and tyranny. How is that any different than what you believe and preach, right here on PS?
This brings up another thorny Constitutional issue. Freedom to practice religion. What if that religion sanctions the killing of certain groups of people? Is it protected under the Constitution? As for the FBI watch list, they can start with every person in that room! They are going to need to do some hiring over at the FBI.That's a "what if" that doesn't exist. Your posts have good insightful fodder but this one is oft-repeated just to scare up the locals.
Post by: Dav8or on June 15, 2016, 12:09:00 PM
true enough. But that didn't stop you from subsequently making wild-ass guesses and even more ridiculous claims.
What ridiculous claims did I make?? I said-
Quote
This guy was actually trained in firearms and tactics and had detailed knowledge of the nightclub's layout. Quite possibly some number of the 50 dead were ones that tried to "take him down". Maybe all citizens should take classes in how to take down armed murdering gunman. Learn how to instinctively run towards bullets, artfully dodge them all, get behind him and give him a swift karate chop to the neck. ::)
From the articles I read, the murdering bastard went to a police academy, there he would have learned weapons handling, marksmanship and tactics in clearing rooms, no? Also I read that he frequented this particular night club many times, that would give him detailed knowledge of the night club's layout, no? To me these are facts, not claims.
The rest after that contain the words "possibly" and "maybe", that makes them suppositions, theories, or suggestions. The first is a valid theory, but not a claim. We have no idea how many people did, or didn't try to stop this putrid idiot. The later is contained in a sentence directly followed by a eye roll emoticon. That indicates sarcasm, not a claim.
Quote
BS. It is a perfectly valid question. Do you know what to do in an active shooter situation? I suspect that you don't.
Evade, Hide, but attack when no other option is available (attack is more challenging when only the bad guy has guns - thanks to all the idiots wanting "gun free" zones).
Why would I know what to do in an "active shooter situation"?? If all that is to know is to run and hide, I got it, I was born with that knowledge. It seems to be the "attack when no other option is available" part that is the sticky part. I guess you could attack him with a beer bottle and see how it goes, maybe if you're prepared you might have a pocket knife, but bringing a knife to a gun fight is the kind of thing jokes are made of.
My brother in-law is a black belt in Kenpo Karate and I have witnessed him successfully disarm attackers (one of them me) with guns with just his hands. The demonstration was done with a loaded BB gun hand gun, so you did have the opportunity to shoot him, but the demo started with the gun at hip fire position. Pretty impressive stuff, but you have to train like a mofo to get there.
His advice to me was, try to run and hide. Failing that, do what they want and if you really think they are going to shoot you, maybe fight if you can, but it likely won't end well for me. His techniques only really work if the attacker is within arms reach, so his advice is if the attacker is outside arm's reach, run and hide and this is what he would do too.
Now I suppose the fantasy is, that groups of people would heroically attack the gunman, potentially sacrificing themselves to save others. Nobel idea, but in reality most people are not John McClain, just want to save themselves and coordinated attacks are unlikely. So they run and hide. If there had been a person, or persons in there armed with guns, then yes, I would expect them to fight back. Ordinary people are not trained action heroes.
Quote
um. No. That is not what was done during WWI. It may look that way in WWI movies.
Um... yes. That was the tactic originally tried to gain ground against dug in enemies armed with machine guns and rifles. It was thought that after a bombardment to "soften the target", given enough foot soldiers, they could charge the defenses, over run the machine gunners and rifleman and take the ground. They were wrong. Hence the huge stalemate for years.
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 12:09:37 PM
Lefties think it means "Assault Rifle", which is what I originally meant to post.Yea, but I do like Armageddon Reaper!
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 12:15:12 PM
If that's true, then the reports I heard about 2 gunman and a 1 doorman is plausible.Well then, Muslims sure have been fucking up big time in the last 1500 years.
There is some logic to the tactic. The Marines taught me that in defending against a well-executed ambush, you're not supposed to make it out alive. Well guess what?!?!? Most tactics are poorly executed so the defense is to ASSAULT THROUGH, which is counter-intuitive. Some will die, yes but many will live that otherwise would have died in hiding.
Holy Qur'an 3:7
He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation.
I find it very interesting that ignorant people on this forum accept the storyline that Islam is what's motivating these people like wind-up toys. Islam has been around for 1500 years and yet this rash of "Islamic Terrorism" on American soil is only 15 years old and it's on everyone's mind. Ask yourself why? Did something change to the religion? Did some new preacher or Imam unlock the secrets to wind people up like mindless robots?
Islam does not tell Muslims to go about seeking to make War. However Islam is the FIRST (and only that I'm aware of) organized religion that tells it's believers to RETALIATE against violence and oppression and specifically forbids the initiation of hostilities. It tells the Muslim to always seek the way of Peace, but where violence is found against you to fight in the Name of Allah against violence and tyranny. How is that any different than what you believe and preach, right here on PS?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 15, 2016, 12:18:25 PM
Well then, Muslims sure have been fucking up big time in the last 1500 years.This is the Muslims' Oft-Repeated Prayer. A Prayerful Muslim will say this 32 times per day. It is also the full text of the 1st Chapter of the Holy Qur'an and is 7 simple Ayat (verses).
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
1:1 Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds,
1:2 The Beneficent, the Merciful,
1:3 Master of the day of Requital.
1:4 Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
1:5 Guide us on the right path,
1:6 The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
1:7 Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.
Post by: JeffDG on June 15, 2016, 01:53:57 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/15/bigots-no-heroes-u-s-gun-owners-everywhere-offering-free-shooting-lessons-to-gays/
Quote
Yesterday, Mr. CJ told me about a post from an acquaintance of his on Facebook named Erin Palette who was compiling a list of friends willing to teach firearm safety to others for free –particularly to members of the LGBT community.
Take them to the gun range, pay for their range time and ammo, teach them about guns and how to handle them safely – all of it. And these wouldn’t necessarily be whole classes on gun safety. These would be individuals who want to learn the basics of gun safety and gun laws, but don’t know where to start.
Basically, that post BLEW UP -- over a hundred (at last count that I could tell) people volunteering their time, expertise, and expense to help total strangers learn how NOT to be the next ISIS terrorist’s victim.
Remind me how America is a super-intolerant and bigoted country, again?
Post by: LevelWing on June 15, 2016, 03:24:09 PM
Excellent!That's great. I hope this takes off and is successful. It's also a great way to bridge the gap between gays and Republicans though I'm not sure that'll work with the liberal narrative that Republicans are all bigots.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/15/bigots-no-heroes-u-s-gun-owners-everywhere-offering-free-shooting-lessons-to-gays/
Post by: LevelWing on June 15, 2016, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: CBS News
"You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance [sic]," Mateen wrote, according to the source.
"In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic State [ISIS] in the usa," the post said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-posted-to-facebook-right-before-attack/
Tell me again how this wasn't a terrorist attack?
Post by: LevelWing on June 15, 2016, 03:46:27 PM
Quote from: NBC News
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he plans to meet with officials from the National Rifle Association about preventing people on the "no fly" federal terrorist watch list from buying firearms.
...
"The NRA's position on this issue has not changed," Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action said in a statement on Wednesday."The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watch list who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-nra-meet-discuss-no-fly-no-buy-anti-terrorism-n593016
This is a very slippery slope. If you tell someone that they cannot purchase a firearm because they are currently on a terrorist watch list, you are in fact depriving them of due process. What's the criteria for getting onto the watch list? Who inspects it to ensure that average Americans aren't on there and the system isn't being abused like the IRS targeting of conservative groups? If you're on it, how do you petition to get off of it (assuming you are even able to find out that you're on it to begin with)?
There is way too much gray area here. I'm all for stopping terrorists and we have systems in place to do that. The reality is that we won't ever be able to stop all of them. Apparently Trump and Democrats think that stripping an American of their rights without due process is okay so long as it's for a good reason. Tomorrow it'll be another good reason why someone can't fly or have a gun. Where does it stop?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 15, 2016, 03:57:02 PM
Weapon used in the shootings.
Post by: acrogimp on June 15, 2016, 04:01:54 PM
SHALL NOT BE FUCKING INFRINGED, it is really simple.
The issue is who pulls the trigger - We stopped immigration from WWI through WWII, we interned the Japanese during WWII (I support this although I agree it was ugly), Carter kicked Shia students out of the US during the hostage crisis and stopped all immigration from Iran (what religion were those guys....).
As a sovereign nation we have every right to control immigration, and our constitution and bill of rights expressly guarantee us the right to self defense without infringement, this is important because the police and other LEO's have no obligation to the individual.
If anyone in that free-fire zone had been armed this might have ended completely different and with far less suffering and death.
'Gimp
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 15, 2016, 04:04:14 PM
Post by: Dav8or on June 15, 2016, 05:23:01 PM
If that's true, then the reports I heard about 2 gunman and a 1 doorman is plausible.
There is some logic to the tactic. The Marines taught me that in defending against a well-executed ambush, you're not supposed to make it out alive. Well guess what?!?!? Most tactics are poorly executed so the defense is to ASSAULT THROUGH, which is counter-intuitive. Some will die, yes but many will live that otherwise would have died in hiding.
Holy Qur'an 3:7
He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation.
I find it very interesting that ignorant people on this forum accept the storyline that Islam is what's motivating these people like wind-up toys. Islam has been around for 1500 years and yet this rash of "Islamic Terrorism" on American soil is only 15 years old and it's on everyone's mind. Ask yourself why? Did something change to the religion? Did some new preacher or Imam unlock the secrets to wind people up like mindless robots?
Islam does not tell Muslims to go about seeking to make War. However Islam is the FIRST (and only that I'm aware of) organized religion that tells it's believers to RETALIATE against violence and oppression and specifically forbids the initiation of hostilities. It tells the Muslim to always seek the way of Peace, but where violence is found against you to fight in the Name of Allah against violence and tyranny. How is that any different than what you believe and preach, right here on PS?
That's a "what if" that doesn't exist. Your posts have good insightful fodder but this one is oft-repeated just to scare up the locals.
Whatever. Did you watch the video posted above? Did you raise your hand? Do you not see a problem with what is being preached vs. western values and American laws?
Post by: Dav8or on June 15, 2016, 05:37:30 PM
Islam does not tell Muslims to go about seeking to make War. However Islam is the FIRST (and only that I'm aware of) organized religion that tells it's believers to RETALIATE against violence and oppression and specifically forbids the initiation of hostilities. It tells the Muslim to always seek the way of Peace, but where violence is found against you to fight in the Name of Allah against violence and tyranny. How is that any different than what you believe and preach, right here on PS?
So the good book says all that and the murdering ISIS robot killer says this-
Quote
"You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance [sic],"
It sounds like to me that since we have dropped bombs on women and children that he's all good to go and all's right with Allah. Can you not see how this is a problem and how Islam is intimately involved? Perversion of the text, or meaning, or not, it is the reality. The solution is for muslims to be united at least in this country and condemn this shooting and the killing of gays in public and private.
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 05:54:05 PM
Trump is caving on the Second and Fifth Amendments, again, and possibly the NRA as well:Spot on in all respects.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-nra-meet-discuss-no-fly-no-buy-anti-terrorism-n593016
This is a very slippery slope. If you tell someone that they cannot purchase a firearm because they are currently on a terrorist watch list, you are in fact depriving them of due process. What's the criteria for getting onto the watch list? Who inspects it to ensure that average Americans aren't on there and the system isn't being abused like the IRS targeting of conservative groups? If you're on it, how do you petition to get off of it (assuming you are even able to find out that you're on it to begin with)?
There is way too much gray area here. I'm all for stopping terrorists and we have systems in place to do that. The reality is that we won't ever be able to stop all of them. Apparently Trump and Democrats think that stripping an American of their rights without due process is okay so long as it's for a good reason. Tomorrow it'll be another good reason why someone can't fly or have a gun. Where does it stop?
Post by: nddons on June 15, 2016, 05:56:29 PM
Trump's reaction is predictable but very, very wrong. Less wrong than Hillary or others, but wrong nonetheless. I accept that as part and parcel of what I like about him overall, he speaks his mind, but it is occasionally troubling, and in this case specifically I disagree with him on anything other than the immigration component.Agreed.
SHALL NOT BE FUCKING INFRINGED, it is really simple.
The issue is who pulls the trigger - We stopped immigration from WWI through WWII, we interned the Japanese during WWII (I support this although I agree it was ugly), Carter kicked Shia students out of the US during the hostage crisis and stopped all immigration from Iran (what religion were those guys....).
As a sovereign nation we have every right to control immigration, and our constitution and bill of rights expressly guarantee us the right to self defense without infringement, this is important because the police and other LEO's have no obligation to the individual.
If anyone in that free-fire zone had been armed this might have ended completely different and with far less suffering and death.
'Gimp
Post by: bflynn on June 15, 2016, 06:27:34 PM
Post by: Dav8or on June 15, 2016, 07:13:05 PM
Trump is caving on the Second and Fifth Amendments, again, and possibly the NRA as well:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-nra-meet-discuss-no-fly-no-buy-anti-terrorism-n593016
This is a very slippery slope. If you tell someone that they cannot purchase a firearm because they are currently on a terrorist watch list, you are in fact depriving them of due process. What's the criteria for getting onto the watch list? Who inspects it to ensure that average Americans aren't on there and the system isn't being abused like the IRS targeting of conservative groups? If you're on it, how do you petition to get off of it (assuming you are even able to find out that you're on it to begin with)?
There is way too much gray area here. I'm all for stopping terrorists and we have systems in place to do that. The reality is that we won't ever be able to stop all of them. Apparently Trump and Democrats think that stripping an American of their rights without due process is okay so long as it's for a good reason. Tomorrow it'll be another good reason why someone can't fly or have a gun. Where does it stop?
This is spot on, but it is a really, really tough time convincing average Americans of this reasoning when they are not gun enthusiasts. Even some that are, are willing to give up control over their right to arms for perceived safety. It's kind of the same way some folks are OK with banning certain kinds of books, magazines or websites in the name of safety, or decency.
To someone who has no interest in guns, or even detests them, the 2nd Amendment very abstract and meaningless. A lot of our citizenry are like this and see no problem with the way they do things in Europe. They believe that if we just vote the right way, we will not ever have a problem with government. They also believe that we would be hopeless and powerless against the government's might should it come to a conflict.
This why if things keep going the way they have been with terrorism and mass shootings on top of the usual urban gun violence, I believe there will soon be a campaign to amend the constitution to nullify the 2nd amendment. I hope I am in my grave before that actually happens, but I fear not. :(
Post by: Dav8or on June 15, 2016, 07:14:22 PM
Don't be overly concerned about what Trump does. He's made it clear that he will deal everything. Every Amendment has always been on the table, he has just been honest enough to admit it.
Exactly. Trust him. It's going to be great!
Post by: Mase on June 15, 2016, 08:06:57 PM
This why if things keep going the way they have been with terrorism and mass shootings on top of the usual urban gun violence, I believe there will soon be a campaign to amend the constitution to nullify the 2nd amendment. I hope I am in my grave before that actually happens, but I fear not. :(
That isn't the way it will happen. It will be by executive action and the courts, and control of ammo.
Post by: Anthony on June 16, 2016, 02:53:04 AM
That isn't the way it will happen. It will be by executive action and the courts, and control of ammo.
If Hillary wins she will pack the Supreme Court with four, far left, anti (legal) gun activists. A case will be heard, and the 2A will be neutered to mean guns can only be owned by the military, police, and the armed guards of the elite.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 04:26:18 AM
So the good book says all that and the murdering ISIS robot killer says this-
It sounds like to me that since we have dropped bombs on women and children that he's all good to go and all's right with Allah. Can you not see how this is a problem and how Islam is intimately involved? Perversion of the text, or meaning, or not, it is the reality. The solution is for muslims to be united at least in this country and condemn this shooting and the killing of gays in public and private.
Can you not see that fits the definition of retaliation? We cannot bomb indiscriminately, cause collateral damage and loss of life without expecting a recourse.
Problem is that I don't know how you limit the method of recourse, as there are to be specifics on life for life with NO expansion of hostilities.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 04:35:53 AM
This put his ISIS pledge in context
https://www.facebook.com/GYouth4Truth/videos/607880522704020/
I'm not yet ready to say what others have said about this incident (false flag). But as it turns out- this woman works for Fox29 News; she's a professional actress. There are reports of another "crisis actor" (a Caucasian woman) also being on the scene.
I will say: calling it the "worst mass shooting in American history" is blatantly a lie.
There is a lot of grief and disassociation over this. Many parents and loved ones of those lost are baffled as to how their child was even at The Pulse LGBTQ nightclub (they were still closeted). I am saddened by not only the loss of life, but also the confusion left behind. I am also saddened by how this will change American society without any real substantive discussion on why America is a target of terrorism, it's root cause and what to do about it.
Post by: LevelWing on June 16, 2016, 04:43:05 AM
Can you not see that fits the definition of retaliation? We cannot bomb indiscriminately, cause collateral damage and loss of life without expecting a recourse.Are you now agreeing that this was an act of terrorism?
Problem is that I don't know how you limit the method of recourse, as there are to be specifics on life for life with NO expansion of hostilities.
Terrorism has a political, ideological or religious motive. This was a lovers quarrel gone violent. The bar was one of his gay hangouts.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 04:46:52 AM
Whatever. Did you watch the video posted above? Did you raise your hand? Do you not see a problem with what is being preached vs. western values and American laws?Why "whatever"? That's not your normal style to dismiss; you normally have a few more fries in your happy meal :) than most others (that's a compliment - not tongue in cheek either).
I hope you didn't think I was disparaging you. It wasn't my intent, your posts just had a lot to offer. I noticed after the fact that I quoted you a lot.
Which video are you referring?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 04:50:01 AM
Are you now agreeing that this was an act of terrorism?I will agree to that conditionally. I'm still not convinced of his selection of target fits the narrative; it adds confusion IMO.
But I also say that retaliation < > terrorism.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 16, 2016, 08:04:53 AM
I will agree to that conditionally. I'm still not convinced of his selection of target fits the narrative; it adds confusion IMO.
But I also say that retaliation < > terrorism.
don't try to excuse terrorism by claiming it is retaliation.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 08:15:58 AM
don't try to excuse terrorism by claiming it is retaliation.
Not at all. I recognize the (possible) intent; I disagree with the execution. There are specific rules of retaliation and they are being violated. Allah says that chastisement shall be visited upon those that exceed the limits.
IOW- two wrongs don't make a right. I accuse both parties of wrong.
Post by: LevelWing on June 16, 2016, 08:51:08 AM
Not at all. I recognize the (possible) intent; I disagree with the execution. There are specific rules of retaliation and they are being violated. Allah says that chastisement shall be visited upon those that exceed the limits.What "wrongs" did the people in the nightclub commit? They were innocent people out having a good time. Was their "wrong" that they were gay? Maybe Islam is different, but Christianity teaches not to judge because that's not your place.
IOW- two wrongs don't make a right. I accuse both parties of wrong.
If the "wrongs" you're suggesting were committed by the U.S. government, explain how the "retaliation" against a civilian target is justifiable in any manner?
There is no reason that you can come up with that will excuse or justify this attack.
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 08:54:16 AM
Can you not see that fits the definition of retaliation? We cannot bomb indiscriminately, cause collateral damage and loss of life without expecting a recourse.
Problem is that I don't know how you limit the method of recourse, as there are to be specifics on life for life with NO expansion of hostilities.
So, if we assume that the ISIS held territories they call the Levant I guess, are an actual country and murdering Mateen swears allegiance to this "country" and recognizes it as his own, is he justified in carrying out mass murder in America? Does the Koran absolve him of these murders because it is just retaliation? Is he the hero, martyr soldier they say he is over there?
I personally am against continued military involvement in the Middle East. I have been saying for quite awhile now to get out and stay out, but not because I wish to appease ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or anybody else, but because it's the right thing for us to do. Continuing on conquering campaigns we can't afford with feeble nation building to follow and the "spread of democracy" is bull shit. The people over there don't want our style of government, they don't want our lifestyle and they don't want our values. We should not be forcing it on them just so we can get some cheap oil.
Having said that I think we should aid the Arab nations over there in any we can with intel and logistics in their fight to kill off ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban and all the various off shoots of this type of Islamic moron. The world does not need their stupid holy crusades.
Can you not see though, how this sanctioned "retaliation" in the Koran is flawed and likely why people have been fighting over there against one another for centuries. Also why Muslims are fighting nearly everywhere they are in the world. When two opposing sides both feel justified in their positions and there is combat and people die, the retaliation goes on forever with no possible way to account for "eye for an eye" to make it even and stop the bloodshed. It's not about defending a peaceful religion, it's about a never ending cycle of war and misery. If Islam lives by the sword, it also dies by the sword.
Post by: nddons on June 16, 2016, 08:54:20 AM
This is the Muslims' Oft-Repeated Prayer. A Prayerful Muslim will say this 32 times per day. It is also the full text of the 1st Chapter of the Holy Qur'an and is 7 simple Ayat (verses).So let me get this straight. 32 times per day, a "Prayerful" Muslim will speak of wrath being brought down to those who "go astray"?
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
1:1 Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds,
1:2 The Beneficent, the Merciful,
1:3 Master of the day of Requital.
1:4 Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
1:5 Guide us on the right path,
1:6 The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
1:7 Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.
It seems like an open invitation for causing all sorts of violence and death on those who "go astray", doesn't it? I mean, you'd be doing God's work, right?
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 08:59:10 AM
I will say: calling it the "worst mass shooting in American history" is blatantly a lie.
How so? What mass shooting in America was worse?? I don't know of one.
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 08:59:42 AM
Why "whatever"? That's not your normal style to dismiss; you normally have a few more fries in your happy meal :) than most others (that's a compliment - not tongue in cheek either).
I hope you didn't think I was disparaging you. It wasn't my intent, your posts just had a lot to offer. I noticed after the fact that I quoted you a lot.
Which video are you referring?
This one-
Post by: nddons on June 16, 2016, 09:09:44 AM
Can you not see that fits the definition of retaliation? We cannot bomb indiscriminately, cause collateral damage and loss of life without expecting a recourse.As a follow up to the Muslim daily prayer said 32 times per day, you say that the Koran permits retaliation. Retaliation for what? Is it prescribed how you should retaliate? Is shooting people in a nightclub acceptable retaliation?
Problem is that I don't know how you limit the method of recourse, as there are to be specifics on life for life with NO expansion of hostilities.
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
If the "wrongs" you're suggesting were committed by the U.S. government, explain how the "retaliation" against a civilian target is justifiable in any manner?
There is no reason that you can come up with that will excuse or justify this attack.
To play Devil's advocate, you must admit that we kill innocent civilians over in the Middle East with our drone strikes and bombing sorties because it is a fact. We don't call them innocent civilians because it sounds nicer when you call them "collateral damage". We can blame the bad guys for placing all of their valuable targets amongst civilians and not out in the open field with a big red X on the roof all we want, but it is their territory, their rules and they can put their stuff wherever they like. It does not justify us killing civilians as we are not even at war with these people.
When we conduct push button, remote control war on people we haven't even declared war agains, accepting that there will be an unknown number of innocent civilian casualties, we are the cowards. I could accept these bombing campaigns if it were shown to get results. Aerial bombardment has never won a war by itself, it is always boots on the ground that does that. To simply bomb people from the air and hope they somehow lose and give up is irresponsible and waste of our resources.
I can see why the people in the Middle East are pissed and they hate us. We don't bring them a lot love. We want what we want and we don't care who gets hurt getting it. I can understand why they join groups to fight us and retaliate. If others can't see this and understand this, then they are either so drenched in red, white and blue that they are blind to the rest of the world, or they are totally heartless.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 09:23:25 AM
What "wrongs" did the people in the nightclub commit? They were innocent people out having a good time. Agree, their "crimes" did not merit the punishment meted out, nor was it appropriate for him to be the judge, jury, executioner. Was their "wrong" that they were gay? Maybe Islam is different, but Christianity teaches not to judge because that's not your place. Very often the verse of "judge not, lest ye be judged" if often stopped there to justify the errant idea you espoused. In actuality there is more to the scripture, look it up. I believe it's out of context and would make more sense if in place of being non-judgmental the practice would be to be non-condemnatory. Judgment is a synonym for discernment and the scriptures of both the Bible and Qur'an encourage it and even asks us to observe people so that we may discern our own paths of obedience vs disobedience to Allah (God).
If the "wrongs" you're suggesting were committed by the U.S. government, explain how the "retaliation" against a civilian target is justifiable in any manner? In a society that understands tribalism, the principle is: you kill my goat, I kill your goat. It is corollary that if you kill my cousin's goat, I kill your goat. Scale up the principle and it is foreseeable that this would be the inevitable result. American politicians are at fault for not knowing this and properly explaining to the American people, informing them that this would be the result of screwing with people halfway around the globe. You can't fuck with people and not expect repercussions. It's human nature and no religion can curtail that.
There is no reason that you can come up with that will excuse or justify this attack.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 16, 2016, 09:26:31 AM
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 09:27:21 AM
So let me get this straight. 32 times per day, a "Prayerful" Muslim will speak of wrath being brought down to those who "go astray"?
It seems like an open invitation for causing all sorts of violence and death on those who "go astray", doesn't it? I mean, you'd be doing God's work, right?
I think it basically says, "Oh, God, give us help and guidance, but do not help those that you have brought wrath down upon, or those that go astray." It is not a call to violence, but it is pretty cultish and uncaring about fellow human beings. It supports the join or die strategy of spreading the faith.
Post by: LevelWing on June 16, 2016, 09:31:29 AM
To play Devil's advocate, you must admit that we kill innocent civilians over in the Middle East with our drone strikes and bombing sorties because it is a fact. We don't call them innocent civilians because it sounds nicer when you call them "collateral damage". We can blame the bad guys for placing all of their valuable targets amongst civilians and not out in the open field with a big red X on the roof all we want, but it is their territory, their rules and they can put their stuff wherever they like. It does not justify us killing civilians as we are not even at war with these people.There is a large, fundamental difference in collateral damage and the intentional targeting of civilians. Yes, civilians die when we conduct bombings in the Middle East, but we don't target them like they do us. There is a significant difference.
When we conduct push button, remote control war on people we haven't even declared war agains, accepting that there will be an unknown number of innocent civilian casualties, we are the cowards. I could accept these bombing campaigns if it were shown to get results. Aerial bombardment has never won a war by itself, it is always boots on the ground that does that. To simply bomb people from the air and hope they somehow lose and give up is irresponsible and waste of our resources.
I can see why the people in the Middle East are pissed and they hate us. We don't bring them a lot love. We want what we want and we don't care who gets hurt getting it. I can understand why they join groups to fight us and retaliate. If others can't see this and understand this, then they are either so drenched in red, white and blue that they are blind to the rest of the world, or they are totally heartless.
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 09:32:17 AM
one of these days, the muslims will dump the 7th century insanity and join modern society. Until then, we will continue to see terrorism and fools justifying it as "retaliation"
I think many try, but the 21st Century is driven by the West and Western culture. Islam and western culture do not appear to be 100% compatible. So for many Muslims, it may come down to ditch Islam, or ditch western values. For many people, life without religion is not possible.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 09:32:32 AM
Can you not see though, how this sanctioned "retaliation" in the Koran is flawed and likely why people have been fighting over there against one another for centuries. Also why Muslims are fighting nearly everywhere they are in the world. When two opposing sides both feel justified in their positions and there is combat and people die, the retaliation goes on forever with no possible way to account for "eye for an eye" to make it even and stop the bloodshed. It's not about defending a peaceful religion, it's about a never ending cycle of war and misery. If Islam lives by the sword, it also dies by the sword.
I'm going to address this only and take it out of context of the recent incident and also out of context of world politics, just dealing with the principle and the context of the Qur'an. Agreed? Narrow focus.
The principle objective in Quranic relations is the establishment of peace. Every opportunity should be taken for open dialogue and the cessation of hostilities. The Quran even forbids a Muslim who believes he may be subject to treachery by an enemy to refuse to accept his olive branch. That's the Islam that I know, study, practice and believe in.
That Islam also says, that until your enemy is ready to come to the negotiating table, then your fight with all your resources until he can wage no more war and then has a desire for peace.
Now coming to world politics:
Show me where in the world where this occurs? You'd be hard pressed to do so. The U.S. military however has the ability to cause enemies to submit, but do so in a way that causes the brokered deals to cause such hardship that in a single generation those deals are untenable and ultimately hostilities resume. Any pedestrian study of history reveals that. That's why the very idea of a "War to End all Wars" was a "lie from the beginning", told by The Devil - real, live human beings with a Satanic mindset, who leave nothing but death and grief in their wake.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 09:33:37 AM
So let me get this straight. 32 times per day, a "Prayerful" Muslim will speak of wrath being brought down to those who "go astray"?
It seems like an open invitation for causing all sorts of violence and death on those who "go astray", doesn't it? I mean, you'd be doing God's work, right?
Allah is He who bring said wrath.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 09:37:01 AM
How so? What mass shooting in America was worse?? I don't know of one.Let me get back to that one, okay? I didn't catalog that information.
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 09:38:50 AM
There is a large, fundamental difference in collateral damage and the intentional targeting of civilians. Yes, civilians die when we conduct bombings in the Middle East, but we don't target them like they do us. There is a significant difference.
There isn't that much difference. We hit targets knowing there are civilians there. We are targeting civilians. It's just we tell ourselves the ends justify the means. Our enemies don't have the means to actually attack our military targets (that pretty much do have big red Xs on the roof), so they do what they can to try to influence us. It's out of our play book. Bomb the civilians until they persuade their leaders to give up the fight. Sound familiar?
Post by: Mase on June 16, 2016, 09:39:55 AM
one of these days, the muslims will dump the 7th century insanity and join modern society.
I would not count on it any time soon.
Post by: Mase on June 16, 2016, 09:45:17 AM
The principle objective in Quranic relations is the establishment of peace. Every opportunity should be taken for open dialogue and the cessation of hostilities. The Quran even forbids a Muslim who believes he may be subject to treachery by an enemy to refuse to accept his olive branch. That's the Islam that I know, study, practice and believe in.
That has really worked well for the Israelis.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 09:48:13 AM
This one-
I'd love to have a transcript of that because he is changing so many things. I got through about half the video.
For example:
At the beginning he seemed to want to defend against oppression in Islam and Radicalism, then he described things that aren't oppressive, like women and men sitting on different sides. This isn't oppressive. When my wife and I go to the Mosque, she sits with the women and I sit with the men. The seats are the same, no more of less comfort. How is that oppressive? It's stupidity to label it as such. It's done that way to eliminate distractions.
Secondly, the Quran doesn't prescribe stoning to death for adultery. That is a falsehood imposed upon Islam. Unfortunately it's a common misconception. There are 4 Ayat where the word "adultery" is used and none of them prescribe stoning or death as punishment. In fact, if you look at the first reference, you'll see that there is a mention of 1/2 the punishment - clearly there is no such thing as 1/2 a death sentence. I've also emboldened a few things of note
Quote
4:25 And whoever among you cannot afford to marry free believing women, (let him marry) such of your believing maidens as your right hands possess. And Allah knows best your faith — you are (sprung) the one from the other. So marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; then if they are guilty of adultery when they are taken in marriage, they shall suffer half the punishment for free married women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil. And that you abstain is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.I also want to say that in 24:2 it should be clarified that the flogging should never be severe to leave a mark on the body. The intent is to shame them, not to inflict permanent injury.
24:2 The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them (with) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you from obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.
24:3 The adulterer cannot have sexual relations with any but an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress, none can have sexual relations with her but an adulterer or an idolater; and it is forbidden to believers.
60:12 O Prophet, when believing women come to thee giving thee a pledge that they will not associate aught with Allah, and will not steal, nor commit adultery; nor kill their children, nor bring a calumny which they have forged of themselves, nor disobey thee in what is good, accept their pledge, and ask forgiveness for them from Allah. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 09:54:05 AM
As a follow up to the Muslim daily prayer said 32 times per day, you say that the Koran permits retaliation. Retaliation for what? Is it prescribed how you should retaliate? Is shooting people in a nightclub acceptable retaliation?These are the references for retaliation. Note also where I have emboldened sections
Quote
Note that in 2:194 that inflicting injury is one thing AND keeping your duty to Allah is another- two separate concerns listed here
2:178 O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain: the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if remission is made to one by his (aggrieved) brother, prosecution (for blood-money) should be according to usage, and payment to him in a good manner. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. Whoever exceeds the limit after this, will have a painful chastisement.
2:179 And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.
2:194 The sacred month for the sacred month, and retaliation (is allowed) in sacred things. Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and keep your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty.
5:45 And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoes it, it shall be an expiation for him. And whoever judges not by what Allah has revealed, those are the wrongdoers.
Also note that in 5:45 the prescription is a reminder of what was given in Torah (The Old Testament of the Bible) that Muslims also believe in - that forgoing said retaliation is allowed.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 09:57:35 AM
I think it basically says, "Oh, God, give us help and guidance, but do not help those that you have brought wrath down upon, or those that go astray." It is not a call to violence, but it is pretty cultish and uncaring about fellow human beings. It supports the join or die strategy of spreading the faith.
Read 5, 6 and 7 together then tell me what you see.
This is the Muslims' Oft-Repeated Prayer. A Prayerful Muslim will say this 32 times per day. It is also the full text of the 1st Chapter of the Holy Qur'an and is 7 simple Ayat (verses).
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
1:1 Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds,
1:2 The Beneficent, the Merciful,
1:3 Master of the day of Requital.
1:4 Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
1:5 Guide us on the right path,
1:6 The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
1:7 Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.
Then compare and contrast to this
Quote
Matthew 6:9-13 (KJV)
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 09:59:03 AM
There is a large, fundamental difference in collateral damage and the intentional targeting of civilians. Yes, civilians die when we conduct bombings in the Middle East, but we don't target them like they do us. There is a significant difference.
While I agree with you in principle, the result of negligence and intentional targeting of civilians is still on both sides dead civilians.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 10:03:55 AM
That has really worked well for the Israelis.
Yeah so much that Israel has never been attacked by ISIS or Al-Quaeda, their supposed mortal enemy and primary target. I wonder why???
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 12:53:08 PM
Yeah so much that Israel has never been attacked by ISIS or Al-Quaeda, their supposed mortal enemy and primary target. I wonder why???
Probably because they have very good security, very good intel, don't have open borders and have no problem with profiling.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 01:04:17 PM
Probably because they have very good security, very good intel, don't have open borders and have no problem with profiling.
There is no such thing as impenetrable security.
Post by: Mase on June 16, 2016, 01:22:31 PM
There is no such thing as impenetrable security.
Which is why there are still kidnappings, insane suicide bombers, tunnelers, incoming rockets, and other stupid stuff.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 01:45:20 PM
Which is why there are still kidnappings, insane suicide bombers, tunnelers, incoming rockets, and other stupid stuff.But again, no ISIS. Which bring this question: who is selecting the ISIS targets?
Post by: asechrest on June 16, 2016, 01:59:35 PM
But again, no ISIS. Which bring this question: who is selecting the ISIS targets?
ISIS?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 16, 2016, 02:13:25 PM
In any military operation you have a primary and secondary targets. You plan to hit your primary target first and if you cannot due to changes enroute, then you proceed to your secondary targets. I asked why there is no evidence or them going after their primary target?
It's been posted previously that ISIS is a puppet organization.
It's been posted previously that many terrorists events worldwide have in-fact been false flag operations.
Follow the breadcrumbs.
Post by: asechrest on June 16, 2016, 02:24:12 PM
Okay, I'm going to break this down for you.
In any military operation you have a primary and secondary targets. You plan to hit your primary target first and if you cannot due to changes enroute, then you proceed to your secondary targets. I asked why there is no evidence or them going after their primary target?
It's been posted previously that ISIS is a puppet organization.
It's been posted previously that many terrorists events worldwide have in-fact been false flag operations.
Follow the breadcrumbs.
Why must everything have a secret conspiracy theory component?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196273
Post by: LevelWing on June 16, 2016, 03:36:22 PM
There isn't that much difference. We hit targets knowing there are civilians there. We are targeting civilians. It's just we tell ourselves the ends justify the means. Our enemies don't have the means to actually attack our military targets (that pretty much do have big red Xs on the roof), so they do what they can to try to influence us. It's out of our play book. Bomb the civilians until they persuade their leaders to give up the fight. Sound familiar?There is in fact a very large difference. We strike targets of military value to us. We have to weigh the risks vs. the rewards of these attacks each and every time. We take into account the number of civilians that are likely to be injured/killed and the associated damage to property. We do not intentionally target civilians like ISIS does.
Post by: LevelWing on June 16, 2016, 03:39:52 PM
While I agree with you in principle, the result of negligence and intentional targeting of civilians is still on both sides dead civilians.Please point out an instance during the campaign against ISIS where the U.S. has specifically and intentionally targeted civilians. It doesn't count if it's a military target that may have had civilian casualties, I want to see a specific reference to a strike that was directed against a group of civilians. You won't find one.
The comparisons being made of U.S. military targets and ISIS murdering innocent civilians is nauseating. There is no equivalency and no comparison.
Post by: LevelWing on June 16, 2016, 03:43:24 PM
But again, no ISIS. Which bring this question: who is selecting the ISIS targets?I don't know for a fact, but it may be that ISIS has some sort of agreement with Hezbollah and Hamas to not conduct attacks there because Hezbollah and Hamas are already doing it. They are, and have been for a long time, waging a campaign against Israel conducting suicide bombings, kidnappings and murders, among other attacks, against Israelis. If it's already being done, why does ISIS need to waste the resources in Israel when they could focus them on the areas they're currently being forced to defend?
Post by: Mase on June 16, 2016, 04:09:29 PM
Post by: LevelWing on June 16, 2016, 04:44:22 PM
Quote from: Washington Times
Attorney General Loretta Lynch overruled FBI Director James B. Comey on Thursday, saying the Obama administration does support denying firearms sales to those on terrorist watch lists and that it can be done without harming investigations.
Mr. Comey last year had told Congress that denying sales could “blow” his agents’ investigations into potential terrorists. But his superiors at the Justice Department issued a statement Thursday saying they want to see Congress approve the “no-fly, no-buy” plan Democrats are pursuing.
“The amendment gives the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while ensuring protection of the department’s operational and investigative sensitivities,” department spokesman Dena Iverson said in a statement.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/doj-overrules-fbi-gun-sales-debate/
That due process really is just getting in the way, isn't it? ::)
Post by: Mase on June 16, 2016, 04:51:41 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 16, 2016, 05:28:47 PM
Post by: asechrest on June 16, 2016, 05:31:25 PM
I don't know for a fact, but it may be that ISIS has some sort of agreement with Hezbollah and Hamas to not conduct attacks there because Hezbollah and Hamas are already doing it. They are, and have been for a long time, waging a campaign against Israel conducting suicide bombings, kidnappings and murders, among other attacks, against Israelis. If it's already being done, why does ISIS need to waste the resources in Israel when they could focus them on the areas they're currently being forced to defend?
At risk of letting the facts get in the way of Jaybird's conspiracy theory, ISIS has, in fact, attacked Israel, AND they've stated why Israel is not currently a focus. But if we ignore facts for a moment...FALSE FLAG!!
Post by: Mase on June 16, 2016, 05:44:42 PM
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=984.0;attach=193;image)
Post by: nddons on June 16, 2016, 06:01:38 PM
Why must everything have a secret conspiracy theory component?I suspect it's really the white former slave owing Joooos who are using ISIS to start attacks against blacks in the US utilizing the grassy knoll for cover. Or something like that.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196273
Post by: nddons on June 16, 2016, 06:05:03 PM
Once they get legislation to keep folks on a list from buying the list will begin to grow in a logarithmic fashion. Make a post on FB about a politician and find yourself on the list.You are exactly right. Nixon wasn't the only politician with an "enemy's list."
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 08:51:11 PM
There is in fact a very large difference. We strike targets of military value to us. We have to weigh the risks vs. the rewards of these attacks each and every time. We take into account the number of civilians that are likely to be injured/killed and the associated damage to property. We do not intentionally target civilians like ISIS does.
How is the difference any different to the dead people?? Same results. Suddenly, without warning, people's lives are shattered, ruined, or ended. Our drone is called Predator, or Global Hawk, or whatever and their drone is called Mateen. Even though we assess, give some consideration to civilians and put them on spreadsheet, when we give the go ahead to let the missiles fly with full knowledge that there are at least some civilians present, we are intentionally targeting civilians. Their lives just don't matter much to us because hey, we think we took out the number two guy or something! And yet it goes on...
We may not do it the same as they do, but the results are the same. We really need to stop the stupid drone strikes, but they're cheap, easy safe for us and makes whoever is president feel bad ass, so I assume we'll keep doing it and they will keep shooting up our public places.
I'll keep saying it. We need to get out and stay out.
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 08:58:11 PM
Please point out an instance during the campaign against ISIS where the U.S. has specifically and intentionally targeted civilians. It doesn't count if it's a military target that may have had civilian casualties,
See, that's why people outside America hate us so much. It does count. We're bombing people we're not even officially at war with and this isn't new, we've been doing it for decades. The problem is, Muslims like their revenge even if it takes a 1000 years.
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 09:02:56 PM
Once they get legislation to keep folks on a list from buying the list will begin to grow in a logarithmic fashion. Make a post on FB about a politician and find yourself on the list.
The very fact that you already own an AR whatever, or a an AK whatever already puts you at suspicion and that's all they need to put you on a list. I mean why would you have those weapons if you weren't planning to mow down civilians?
Post by: Dav8or on June 16, 2016, 09:22:53 PM
I suspect it's really the white former slave owing Joooos who are using ISIS to start attacks against blacks in the US utilizing the grassy knoll for cover. Or something like that.
Well, as you know, it turns out the Blacks in America are the actual chosen ones and that has to make some people pretty jealous!
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 17, 2016, 04:42:42 AM
Why must everything have a secret conspiracy theory component?Thank you for sharing that. Mashallah.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196273
I don't mean to invalidate the article but it didn't make a Lot of sense, perhaps I'm missing some context as it was published a year ago. It said that they wanted to retaliate on Israel because of someone who died at the hands of Hamas but Hamas has restrained them from doing so.
I'm scratching my head on this one.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 17, 2016, 04:44:12 AM
There is in fact a very large difference. We strike targets of military value to us. We have to weigh the risks vs. the rewards of these attacks each and every time. We take into account the number of civilians that are likely to be injured/killed and the associated damage to property. We do not intentionally target civilians like ISIS does.How can you vouch for target selection in the US military? Do you have access to that Intel or do you just bleed ole' glory so much that evidence to the contrary make your head explode?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 17, 2016, 04:51:50 AM
Please point out an instance during the campaign against ISIS where the U.S. has specifically and intentionally targeted civilians. It doesn't count if it's a military target that may have had civilian casualties, I want to see a specific reference to a strike that was directed against a group of civilians. You won't find one.I say at minimum there is negligence.
The comparisons being made of U.S. military targets and ISIS murdering innocent civilians is nauseating. There is no equivalency and no comparison.
On the other note,
Estimates from this source say 253,000 civilian deaths in Iraq alone
https://www.iraqbodycount.org
This source says 210,000 deaths in Afghanistan with secondary causes arising from infrastructure losses (food, water and medical supply) http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians
We fail time and again to consider the true cost of war and it takes at least 2 generations to count it.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 17, 2016, 04:59:22 AM
At risk of letting the facts get in the way of Jaybird's conspiracy theory, ISIS has, in fact, attacked Israel, AND they've stated why Israel is not currently a focus. But if we ignore facts for a moment...FALSE FLAG!!If I have incorrect information I will accept correction. Please share.
But on that note: I dare you (that's plural you) to truthfully answer this question:
Do nations conduct false flag operations? Had the United States of America ever conducted one? Has Anerican morality improved so much that they (political leaders) are now above reproach in integrity and information dissemination such that everything we see on the news outlets can be trusted as reliable.
I'll answer: Yes, Yes and HELL NO!
Your turn
Post by: Little Joe on June 17, 2016, 05:29:53 AM
. . . Their lives just don't matter much to us. . .Invalid arguments don't help your case, even if they sound good.
Your statement above means you have no sense of relativity. Civilian lives do indeed matter. But if by saving one child's life you doom hundreds more to murder, rape, slavery, then which matters more, the one we kill, or the many we save?
I'll keep saying it. We need to get out and stay out.I agree wholeheartedly with this. But when reality jumps in you have to deal with it. We are there and we are involved. Sometimes, you just have to lie in that bed you just made.
Post by: bflynn on June 17, 2016, 06:26:23 AM
I'll keep saying it. We need to get out and stay out.
It's funny, the president said basically the same thing 8 years ago and he was dead serious about it. Yet, 8 years later, we're still involved. Perhaps there actually is a really good reason for us to the be there that you and I aren't privy to.
I don't know the reason and I don't want to speculate on them. But when you were publicly dead set against something, gain the power to change it and then you don't, I presume you've learned something secret that altered your opinion. Ditto on Gitmo. 8 years later it is still open. Apparently he has access to more information than we have here.
Post by: Little Joe on June 17, 2016, 06:49:01 AM
It's funny, the president said basically the same thing 8 years ago and he was dead serious about it. Yet, 8 years later, we're still involved. Perhaps there actually is a really good reason for us to the be there that you and I aren't privy to.I don't think that's it. I think that when you are actually put on the spot, and have to make a decision, things get a little tougher. It is easy to sit back on the internet and spout your idealistic positions. But when you have all the facts shoved in your face and you have to weigh the consequences of your actions and make a decision, you often come to a conclusion that you wish you didn't have to. I don't believe there has ever been a war where that wasn't true.
Post by: JeffDG on June 17, 2016, 06:58:25 AM
Post by: asechrest on June 17, 2016, 07:18:23 AM
If I have incorrect information I will accept correction. Please share.
But on that note: I dare you (that's plural you) to truthfully answer this question:
Do nations conduct false flag operations? Had the United States of America ever conducted one? Has Anerican morality improved so much that they (political leaders) are now above reproach in integrity and information dissemination such that everything we see on the news outlets can be trusted as reliable.
I'll answer: Yes, Yes and HELL NO!
Your turn
I'll leave the conspiracy theory corners of the internet to be lurked by you. I don't have time at the moment to provide links, but suffice it to say that ISIS or supporting groups have attacked Israel (rockets fired into Southern regions and supporters attacking in-country, for example). Further, ISIS themselves have released a statement about Israel not being a current focus but reiterating that the war is coming and those who are able should kill or harm the Jews any way they can.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 17, 2016, 07:37:16 AM
At the beginning he seemed to want to defend against oppression in Islam and Radicalism, then he described things that aren't oppressive, like women and men sitting on different sides. This isn't oppressive. When my wife and I go to the Mosque, she sits with the women and I sit with the men. The seats are the same, no more of less comfort. How is that oppressive? It's stupidity to label it as such. It's done that way to eliminate distractions.
Great, so let's bring back "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" water fountains. Obviously not oppressive, it just eliminates distractions.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 17, 2016, 12:53:44 PM
I'll leave the conspiracy theory corners of the internet to be lurked by you. I don't have time at the moment to provide links, but suffice it to say that ISIS or supporting groups have attacked Israel (rockets fired into Southern regions and supporters attacking in-country, for example). Further, ISIS themselves have released a statement about Israel not being a current focus but reiterating that the war is coming and those who are able should kill or harm the Jews any way they can.
You didn't address the question of: Do False Flag Operations Occur? Simple question.
Great, so let's bring back "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" water fountains. Obviously not oppressive, it just eliminates distractions.Invalid argument. Now you're just making an argument to be heard. Bye.
Post by: asechrest on June 17, 2016, 01:03:45 PM
You didn't address the question of: Do False Flag Operations Occur? Simple question.
Historically, yes. Currently, I don't know, but probably. But recognize that the existence of deception in the past or present is a conspiracy theorist's fodder for believing nearly everything has some sinister secret element controlled by <insert government entity>. Occam's Razor is will better serve you in a majority of cases.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 17, 2016, 01:06:54 PM
Historically, yes. Currently, I don't know, but probably. But recognize that the existence of deception in the past or present is a conspiracy theorist's fodder for believing nearly everything has some sinister secret element controlled by <insert government entity>. Occam's Razor is will better serve you in a majority of cases.
And now this....
http://www.neonnettle.com/sphere/353-1-trillion-dollar-lawsuit-filed-against-msm-for-staging-sandy-hook-
Quote
In another shocking twist in the Sandy Hook saga, Filmmaker and Author William Brandon Shanley Launches Wave of Lawsuits for more than $1 Trillion Against Big Media Over Sandy Hook Massacre Coverage.
Post by: asechrest on June 17, 2016, 01:11:42 PM
And now this....
http://www.neonnettle.com/sphere/353-1-trillion-dollar-lawsuit-filed-against-msm-for-staging-sandy-hook-
I assume that you're posting that as a joke. If not, I think you should evaluate whether the dark and whacko corners of the internet are doing you any good.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 17, 2016, 07:57:04 PM
You didn't address the question of: Do False Flag Operations Occur? Simple question.
Invalid argument. Now you're just making an argument to be heard. Bye.
Give up already, Marvin?
Post by: Number7 on June 18, 2016, 05:50:18 AM
You didn't address the question of: Do False Flag Operations Occur? Simple question.
Invalid argument. Now you're just making an argument to be heard. Bye.
You are such an intellectual coward. When faced with the bold faced lies of your position you fold your tent, act insulted and run away.
Good work.
Post by: nddons on June 18, 2016, 06:49:03 PM
And now this....Wow. I just wasted several million brain cells reading that story.
http://www.neonnettle.com/sphere/353-1-trillion-dollar-lawsuit-filed-against-msm-for-staging-sandy-hook-
Who can I sue for damages?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 19, 2016, 12:19:57 AM
Wow. I just wasted several million brain cells reading that story.
Who can I sue for damages?
You can sue anyone you want.... except for a snowflake (the suit might make the snowflake feel uncomfortable)
Post by: LevelWing on June 19, 2016, 02:21:38 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html
Post by: nddons on June 19, 2016, 03:27:43 PM
The FBI and Justice Department will release a partial transcript tomorrow of the phone calls between the shooter an the hostage negotiators, but they are removing the portions that reference his allegiance to ISIS.Of course. Because that's not relevant to the need to separate law abiding citizens from their weapons.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html
Post by: Anthony on June 20, 2016, 03:16:57 AM
The FBI and Justice Department will release a partial transcript tomorrow of the phone calls between the shooter an the hostage negotiators, but they are removing the portions that reference his allegiance to ISIS.
Pure censorship by our government. More propaganda by elimination.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 20, 2016, 07:53:02 AM
You are such an intellectual coward. When faced with the bold faced lies of your position you fold your tent, act insulted and run away.Why don't you go grab a dictionary and stop using words you don't know the definitions for.
Good work.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 20, 2016, 09:03:16 AM
Why don't you go grab a dictionary and stop using words you don't know the definitions for.
you ended that sentence with a preposition!
Post by: nddons on June 20, 2016, 01:02:02 PM
you ended that sentence with a preposition!Ooops.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 20, 2016, 03:35:27 PM
you ended that sentence with a preposition!Bite me with it
;D
Post by: Mase on June 20, 2016, 06:43:38 PM
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/l/t1.0-9/13413581_1082750208471718_5347438379786513511_n.jpg?oh=8d2391c44dff3ee067aec4f0488298e5&oe=57E0C554)
Post by: Number7 on June 22, 2016, 05:21:03 AM
Why don't you go grab a dictionary and stop using words you don't know the definitions for.
Whenever someone refuses to take your bait you run like an intellectual coward, quit the discussion and then change the point and attack if that does't work. Racism must make people stupid at simple discussion. It sure works with you.
Post by: Mase on June 23, 2016, 02:17:15 PM
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 24, 2016, 09:42:32 AM
Whenever someone refuses to take your bait you run like an intellectual coward, quit the discussion and then change the point and attack if that does't work. Racism must make people stupid at simple discussion. It sure works with you.You make no sense. I'm not going to waste my time with your dribble.
Post by: asechrest on June 24, 2016, 10:10:18 AM
You make no sense. I'm not going to waste my time with your dribble.
He's no good at basketball, anyway.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 24, 2016, 10:32:49 AM
You make no sense. I'm not going to waste my time with your dribble.
Hey Marvin, still running away from a fight, eh?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 24, 2016, 03:00:24 PM
Historically, yes. Currently, I don't know, but probably. But recognize that the existence of deception in the past or present is a conspiracy theorist's fodder for believing nearly everything has some sinister secret element controlled by <insert government entity>. Occam's Razor is will better serve you in a majority of cases.I thought I understood Occam's Razor. After reading a little on it it seems I'm not alone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Post by: asechrest on June 24, 2016, 03:27:51 PM
I thought I understood Occam's Razor. After reading a little on it it seems I'm not alone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
From the link: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Now apply liberally, and you will find that the truth is often as it seems or nearly so, rather than a twisted web of sinister government plots that only a few people have figured out.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 27, 2016, 07:26:48 AM
Post by: asechrest on June 27, 2016, 11:20:37 AM
In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]
If you have a point, I'm not sure what it is. You're certainly not employing the scientific method to come up with your theories that the government gives black kids autism with vaccines or that "the media" staged Sandy Hook.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 27, 2016, 01:10:28 PM
If you have a point, I'm not sure what it is. You're certainly not employing the scientific method to come up with your theories that the government gives black kids autism with vaccines or that "the media" staged Sandy Hook.
Your suggestion of Occam's Razor is off-kilter, all I was saying.
OR doesn't disprove that idea that Autism is caused by vaccines nor disproves that SH was a hoax; it's unrelated intellectual fodder that is raised for the sole purpose to cause doubt without containing any disproving facts.
Post by: asechrest on June 27, 2016, 01:41:31 PM
Your suggestion of Occam's Razor is off-kilter, all I was saying.
OR doesn't disprove that idea that Autism is caused by vaccines nor disproves that SH was a hoax; it's unrelated intellectual fodder that is raised for the sole purpose to cause doubt without containing any disproving facts.
I merely suggested it as a rule of thumb to fairly-reliably choose the truth over the lies in order to overcome your apparent tendency toward wild conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories often necessarily involve so many moving parts to make them nigh infeasible. Ref. 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy theories and your recently-posted theory that Sandy Hook was staged.
So let's apply Occam's Razor to Sandy Hook, for example. If it was staged by the government with the "MSM" complicit, the operation would require clandestine planning and hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators, including parents who helped fake their children's deaths, to participate and then keep their mouths shut forever more.
Or, instead, the portrayals of the event were generally accurate, and a deranged kid named Adam Lanza entered a school that was poorly equipped to deal with a shooter and killed a bunch of kids and school staff.
Using Occam's Razor as a rule of thumb would push you to choose the second scenario, given its simplicity over the first. Does that mean that scenario #1 is certain to be false? Well, no, but then again, nothing is certain but death and taxes, but many things are unfathomably more likely than other things.
If that's not good enough for you, I dare you to disprove that an alien civilization with a base on the recently-discovered asteroid "orbiting" Earth sent one of their representatives who we thought was a human named Adam Lanza to shoot up an elementary school in order to cause havoc leading to the eventual election of a Liberal named Trump, who is also an alien in disguise.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 27, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
I merely suggested it as a rule of thumb to fairly-reliably choose the truth over the lies in order to overcome your apparent tendency toward wild conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories often necessarily involve so many moving parts to make them nigh infeasible. Ref. 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy theories and your recently-posted theory that Sandy Hook was staged.
So let's apply Occam's Razor to Sandy Hook, for example. If it was staged by the government with the "MSM" complicit, the operation would require clandestine planning and hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators, including parents who helped fake their children's deaths, to participate and then keep their mouths shut forever more.
Or, instead, the portrayals of the event were generally accurate, and a deranged kid named Adam Lanza entered a school that was poorly equipped to deal with a shooter and killed a bunch of kids and school staff.
Using Occam's Razor as a rule of thumb would push you to choose the second scenario, given its simplicity over the first. Does that mean that scenario #1 is certain to be false? Well, no, but then again, nothing is certain but death and taxes, but many things are unfathomably more likely than other things.
If that's not good enough for you, I dare you to disprove that an alien civilization with a base on the recently-discovered asteroid "orbiting" Earth sent one of their representatives who we thought was a human named Adam Lanza to shoot up an elementary school in order to cause havoc leading to the eventual election of a Liberal named Trump, who is also an alien in disguise.
9/11 really wouldn't take much to do. If you recall that day, none of the security procedures for hijacked aircraft were followed...I'm talking about the procedures in place well before that day. Utter failure - it doesn't take too many people to make a failure when a process is stovepiped. Remember: there was to be an Emergency Exercise planned that day and many of the people who died thought the exercise was too early and they went back to work only to get hit by plane #2.
Sandy Hook: it was suggested that it was an exercise that the media then portrayed as a real-live event. Doesn't take many people to pull that off either, vast conspiracy not-necessary.
Post by: nddons on June 27, 2016, 02:34:51 PM
I merely suggested it as a rule of thumb to fairly-reliably choose the truth over the lies in order to overcome your apparent tendency toward wild conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories often necessarily involve so many moving parts to make them nigh infeasible. Ref. 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy theories and your recently-posted theory that Sandy Hook was staged.You know, you are really a Debbie Downer for wild conspiracy theorists!
So let's apply Occam's Razor to Sandy Hook, for example. If it was staged by the government with the "MSM" complicit, the operation would require clandestine planning and hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators, including parents who helped fake their children's deaths, to participate and then keep their mouths shut forever more.
Or, instead, the portrayals of the event were generally accurate, and a deranged kid named Adam Lanza entered a school that was poorly equipped to deal with a shooter and killed a bunch of kids and school staff.
Using Occam's Razor as a rule of thumb would push you to choose the second scenario, given its simplicity over the first. Does that mean that scenario #1 is certain to be false? Well, no, but then again, nothing is certain but death and taxes, but many things are unfathomably more likely than other things.
If that's not good enough for you, I dare you to disprove that an alien civilization with a base on the recently-discovered asteroid "orbiting" Earth sent one of their representatives who we thought was a human named Adam Lanza to shoot up an elementary school in order to cause havoc leading to the eventual election of a Liberal named Trump, who is also an alien in disguise.
Post by: asechrest on June 27, 2016, 04:58:38 PM
9/11 really wouldn't take much to do. If you recall that day, none of the security procedures for hijacked aircraft were followed...I'm talking about the procedures in place well before that day. Utter failure - it doesn't take too many people to make a failure when a process is stovepiped. Remember: there was to be an Emergency Exercise planned that day and many of the people who died thought the exercise was too early and they went back to work only to get hit by plane #2.
Sandy Hook: it was suggested that it was an exercise that the media then portrayed as a real-live event. Doesn't take many people to pull that off either, vast conspiracy not-necessary.
This is going to sound harsh, but don't be stupid. Run yourself through the scenario that involves the MSM conspiring to and succeeding in pulling the wool over the entirety of the world's eyes, except for a few wackos on the Internet. Are the heartbroken parents just actors? Are the children who died also actors that were then moved to an undisclosed location to finish out their schooling? Are the graves fake? Are the first responders in on it? Is the school faculty keeping the secret under wraps? Are the local news media that interviewed those involved also in on it? The president is in on it too? The newspapers? Is Adam Lanza's mom still alive, sort of like Elvis? Is every individual who would have to be involved in this vast MSM farce managing to keep their mouths shut?
Honestly, now.
Post by: asechrest on June 27, 2016, 09:59:50 PM
You know, you are really a Debbie Downer for wild conspiracy theorists!
I know. I'm a hit at parties, too. ;D
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 28, 2016, 02:29:47 PM
This is going to sound harsh, but don't be stupid. Run yourself through the scenario that involves the MSM conspiring to and succeeding in pulling the wool over the entirety of the world's eyes, except for a few wackos on the Internet. Are the heartbroken parents just actors? Are the children who died also actors that were then moved to an undisclosed location to finish out their schooling? Are the graves fake? Are the first responders in on it? Is the school faculty keeping the secret under wraps? Are the local news media that interviewed those involved also in on it? The president is in on it too? The newspapers? Is Adam Lanza's mom still alive, sort of like Elvis? Is every individual who would have to be involved in this vast MSM farce managing to keep their mouths shut?
Honestly, now.
I'm not defending the SH incident lawsuit, I saw it and thought it interesting.
9/11 - I still say those buildings were professionally dropped. The buildings were designed to withstand impact from a Beoing 707, yet they fell. 2 buildings were hit, yet 3 dropped. The Chief CFI where I trained flew with one of the alleged hijackers and said he couldn't fly worth a damn and yet that 270degree descending turn was perfectly executed. Air Force F-16s was dispatched from Ohio to investigate, when there were aircraft closer yet Langley AFB has that mission. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Post by: Number7 on June 28, 2016, 03:11:16 PM
I'm not defending the SH incident lawsuit, I saw it and thought it interesting.
9/11 - I still say those buildings were professionally dropped. The buildings were designed to withstand impact from a Beoing 707, yet they fell. 2 buildings were hit, yet 3 dropped. The Chief CFI where I trained flew with one of the alleged hijackers and said he couldn't fly worth a damn and yet that 270degree descending turn was perfectly executed. Air Force F-16s was dispatched from Ohio to investigate, when there were aircraft closer yet Langley AFB has that mission. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Yep.
And George W. Bush dynamited those dikes in New Orleans, After stealing all the money appropriated to improve them, so he could spend it all on hookers and blow at Hooters.
Yep.
Liberalism really does make you stupid.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 28, 2016, 03:15:40 PM
Yep.Now your silly expansion is just used as a worthless paper shield, since you have nothing of value to refute what I said...there you go again.
And George W. Bush dynamited those dikes in New Orleans, After stealing all the money appropriated to improve them, so he could spend it all on hookers and blow at Hooters.
Yep.
Liberalism really does make you stupid.
Shut your mouth when grown folks are talking.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 28, 2016, 04:19:18 PM
Now your silly expansion is just used as a worthless paper shield, since you have nothing of value to refute what I said...there you go again.Hey Marvin, Porkpie Hat and Rad say hello.
Shut your mouth when grown folks are talking.
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 04:22:24 PM
9/11 - I still say those buildings were professionally dropped.OK, I need to read nothing further you have to say. You're obviously impervious to actual facts and are credulous of batshit crazy conspiracy theories.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 28, 2016, 04:22:56 PM
Now your silly expansion is just used as a worthless paper shield, since you have nothing of value to refute what I said...there you go again.
Shut your mouth when grown folks are talking.
Stop talking complete nonsense and people will take you seriously.
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 04:24:30 PM
Stop talking complete nonsense and people will take you seriously.He's a 9/11 Troofer. Complete nonsense is SOP.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 28, 2016, 08:21:09 PM
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 28, 2016, 09:16:07 PM
OK, I need to read nothing further you have to say. You're obviously impervious to actual facts and are credulous of batshit crazy conspiracy theories.You've shown no facts.
Post by: nddons on June 28, 2016, 09:21:53 PM
OK, I need to read nothing further you have to say. You're obviously impervious to actual facts and are credulous of batshit crazy conspiracy theories.I heard that delusionalal shit on Coast to Coast AM; I never thought I would hear it from someone who purports to be a pilot. What's so hard about a 270 descending return in anything? I've done a downwind to landing in a 737 USAir sim once.
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 09:22:00 PM
You've shown no facts.Sorry, batshit crazy conspiracy theorists care not for facts.
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 09:23:27 PM
I heard that delusionalal shit on Coast to Coast AM; I never thought I would hear it from someone who purports to be a pilot. What's so hard about a 270 descending return in anything? I've done a downwind to landing in a 737 USAir sim once.Hell, autopilot, dial the heading bug around, set new altitude bug. Will execute a perfect 270 descending turn with zero skill level other than seeing how to run the AP.
But yeah, it was THEM that did it.
Post by: nddons on June 28, 2016, 09:27:53 PM
Hell, autopilot, dial the heading bug around, set new altitude bug. Will execute a perfect 270 descending turn with zero skill level other than seeing how to run the AP.But that's not possible. It's the "religion of peace," isn't it?
But yeah, it was THEM that did it.
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 09:30:47 PM
But that's not possible. It's the "religion of peace," isn't it?No, no, not that THEM.
THEM-THEM, you know, the Zionist Illuminati Lizard People. Oh no, I've said too much.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/jet_fuel.png)
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 09:32:39 PM
Maybe this is what happened?
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/semicontrolled_demolition.png)
Post by: Dav8or on June 28, 2016, 10:14:09 PM
OK, I need to read nothing further you have to say. You're obviously impervious to actual facts and are credulous of batshit crazy conspiracy theories.
Agreed. The 911 conspiracy crap makes me ill. If one is that desperate to distrust the government and basically the whole world, then by all means, stock pile your weapons and your provisions in your bunker, but leave me out of the hows and whys one reads on the internet.
Post by: Dav8or on June 28, 2016, 10:17:42 PM
Stop talking complete nonsense and people will take you seriously.
You do realize that the more people call people out on bats shit crazy theories, the tighter they those people purporting them cling to them, right?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 04:46:39 AM
You do realize that the more people call people out on bats shit crazy theories, the tighter they those people purporting them cling to them, right?
What, pray tell, loosens their grip? Present actual facts - they tighten their grip. Agree with them - they tighten their grip. Ignore them - they tighten grip.
Post by: Little Joe on June 29, 2016, 05:16:53 AM
What, pray tell, loosens their grip? Present actual facts - they tighten their grip. Agree with them - they tighten their grip. Ignore them - they tighten grip.Perhaps introducing them to 72 virgins will help get the point across.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 05:48:38 AM
Perhaps introducing them to 72 virgins will help get the point across.
(stolen from the interweb, with a minor correction)
Bin Laden's Afterlife Surprise
After going for his final swim, Osama made his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington.
"How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping Osama in the face. Patrick Henry comes up from behind: "You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Osama on the nose. James Madison comes up next, and says, "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on Osama's knee.
Osama is subject to similar beatings from John Randolph of Roanoke, James Monroe and 65 other 18th-century American revolutionaries. As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up to hurl him back toward the gate where he is to be judged.
As Osama awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams, "This is not what I was promised!"
An angel replies: "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think I said?"
Post by: Number7 on June 29, 2016, 06:07:57 AM
Now your silly expansion is just used as a worthless paper shield, since you have nothing of value to refute what I said...there you go again.
Shut your mouth when grown folks are talking.
As USUAL, with nothing but stupidity and racism to claim you lose your poise when challenged. Nothing to see here. Just another blind progressive babbling like a brook and demanding attention like a three year old.
Post by: Little Joe on June 29, 2016, 07:02:06 AM
The 100 people were unarmed because of state laws. Plus most were probably stoned. also heard a report that exit doors were chained.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-pulse-shooting-records-20160628-story.html
Quote
Fire department disputes official reports of exit door blockage at PulseBut who can trust those lying firemen? ::)
Post by: asechrest on June 29, 2016, 07:11:28 AM
I'm not defending the SH incident lawsuit, I saw it and thought it interesting.
9/11 - I still say those buildings were professionally dropped. The buildings were designed to withstand impact from a Beoing 707, yet they fell. 2 buildings were hit, yet 3 dropped. The Chief CFI where I trained flew with one of the alleged hijackers and said he couldn't fly worth a damn and yet that 270degree descending turn was perfectly executed. Air Force F-16s was dispatched from Ohio to investigate, when there were aircraft closer yet Langley AFB has that mission. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
What's strange to me is that you're clearly an intelligent man, including having been successful enough to earn your pilot's license and raise a family. That requires some amount of rationality in your life, whereby you live your life not necessarily being completely certain of things, but making decisions about what is most likely true, and proceeding on. Yet when it comes to conspiracy theories, you appear to throw rationality completely out the window in favor of these wild scenarios that are ridiculous on their face.
It is fascinating, really. I wonder what makes a person latch onto these things?
Post by: JeffDG on June 29, 2016, 07:22:05 AM
It is fascinating, really. I wonder what makes a person latch onto these things?Wow, this is a new record for me, but 3 xkcd in one thread...
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/conspiracy_theories.png)
Post by: Little Joe on June 29, 2016, 07:23:38 AM
I'm not defending the SH incident lawsuit, I saw it and thought it interesting.Was that theory ever tested out in real life?
9/11 - I still say those buildings were professionally dropped. The buildings were designed to withstand impact from a Beoing 707, yet they fell. 2 buildings were hit, yet 3 dropped. The Chief CFI where I trained flew with one of the alleged hijackers and said he couldn't fly worth a damn and yet that 270degree descending turn was perfectly executed. Air Force F-16s was dispatched from Ohio to investigate, when there were aircraft closer yet Langley AFB has that mission. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
And isn't a 767 larger than a 707?
And were they designed to not only withstand the impact, but also the burning of around 400,000 pounds of fuel?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 08:08:03 AM
I heard that delusionalal shit on Coast to Coast AM; I never thought I would hear it from someone who purports to be a pilot. What's so hard about a 270 descending return in anything? I've done a downwind to landing in a 737 USAir sim once.The man flat out told me that he couldn't fly worth a damn. So much that not only would he not rent them one of their airplanes, but he wouldn't even accept him as a rusty pilot trainee. He flat out refused his business for the SOLE REASON of his lack of piloting skill...it was THAT bad.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 08:11:09 AM
As USUAL, with nothing but stupidity and racism to claim you lose your poise when challenged. Nothing to see here. Just another blind progressive babbling like a brook and demanding attention like a three year old.
Oh geez...you're not even fun anymore. Whatthehelldoyoumean racist!!!?!??
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 08:14:25 AM
What's strange to me is that you're clearly an intelligent man, including having been successful enough to earn your pilot's license and raise a family. That requires some amount of rationality in your life, whereby you live your life not necessarily being completely certain of things, but making decisions about what is most likely true, and proceeding on. Yet when it comes to conspiracy theories, you appear to throw rationality completely out the window in favor of these wild scenarios that are ridiculous on their face.
It is fascinating, really. I wonder what makes a person latch onto these things?
There's too much in the official story that doesn't fit. Also, I was Active Duty at on 9/11 and I deployed shortly thereafter. When I returned stateside I became an avid newsreader and I began to see the news media and government for the "storytellers" they were. I rarely read or watch the news nowadays because of it, otherwise I'd be a flaming lunatic about what's going on in politics now.
Question: Did they put that Hillary woman in jail yet? I'm waiting for that.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 08:16:06 AM
Was that theory ever tested out in real life?Go watch a video and tell me that's the way a burning building falls. Hint: it's not...
And isn't a 767 larger than a 707?
And were they designed to not only withstand the impact, but also the burning of around 400,000 pounds of fuel?
I'm going to make a phonecall to a friend who is a Fire Captain and former Fire Academy Instructor...I'll get back to you.
(yo, Bobby!)
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 08:20:36 AM
Was that theory ever tested out in real life?
And isn't a 767 larger than a 707?
And were they designed to not only withstand the impact, but also the burning of around 400,000 pounds of fuel?
You must not be an Engineer. Of course they couldn't test it out in real life, but they can make certain calculations about the known strengths of materials and project that it SHOULD withstand such and such loads, temperatures, etc. When you crash a jet into a building that is designed for such, then you assume that jet is going to be carrying fuel and you know the specific burning temperatures of the fuel. Saying that it was a different type of aircraft has some, but not as much weight. All engineered solutions have overdesign.
Post by: nddons on June 29, 2016, 08:21:06 AM
The man flat out told me that he couldn't fly worth a damn. So much that not only would he not rent them one of their airplanes, but he wouldn't even accept him as a rusty pilot trainee. He flat out refused his business for the SOLE REASON of his lack of piloting skill...it was THAT bad.OH MY GOD!!!!!
While I've never hijacked a plane, my guess is that you don't have to be a Gold Seal CFI to be able to fly it for a few minutes. You just have to know how to disengage the AP, turn the yoke, and move the throttles. That's less than you have to do to pilot a 172.
He also didn't have to worry about landing the plane.
Post by: JeffDG on June 29, 2016, 08:23:27 AM
OH MY GOD!!!!!No need to disengage the AP. Turn the heading bug, set the altitude bug, and voila! Perfect descending turn.
While I've never hijacked a plane, my guess is that you don't have to be a Gold Seal CFI to be able to fly it for a few minutes. You just have to know how to disengage the AP, turn the yoke, and move the throttles. That's less than you have to do to pilot a 172.
He also didn't have to worry about landing the plane.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 29, 2016, 08:49:24 AM
Post by: Mase on June 29, 2016, 08:55:08 AM
The man flat out told me that he couldn't fly worth a damn.
How was he with a box cutter?
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 08:58:17 AM
Go watch a video and tell me that's the way a burning building falls. Hint: it's not...
I'm going to make a phonecall to a friend who is a Fire Captain and former Fire Academy Instructor...I'll get back to you.
(yo, Bobby!)
Just spoke with Bobby. He said, 'I can't give you my professional opinion because I'm not a Certified Arson Investigator, but I can give you my personal opinion.' Then he proceeded to explain the reasons why they sequence of events that happened as seen in the video that preceded the building collapse do not match what happens in a fire, or in a collision or when accelerant (fuel) is involved. He said, "I believe it was a controlled implosion."
Bobby is someone that I personally know and I can personally vouch for his professional credentials. What are yours?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 09:14:23 AM
Go watch a video and tell me that's the way a burning building falls. Hint: it's not...
When an demolition expert takes a building down, she takes out the internal support so that it collapses in on itself. Normally done with some carefully place explosives.
When a fire destroys the strength of the internal support of a building, the building will (a) continue standing and fall over like any other building destroyed by fire or (b) collapse on itself?
Hint: with hindsight, the reason the buildings collapsed was obvious.
Hint: when the internal support structure of a building is compromised, the building will go down. It doesn't matter if internal support is compromised by carefully placed charges or a fire or a boogey man.
I'm reminded of a quote from "Force 10 from Navarone": something like: "well, they may be experts at building things, but I'm an expert at blowing things up..."
A firefighter isn't the best source of information about building demolition or the engineering required for building structural integrity - a firefighter is a good source of information on..... putting out fires.
Post by: JeffDG on June 29, 2016, 09:35:17 AM
A firefighter isn't the best source of information about building demolition or the engineering required for building structural integrity - a firefighter is a good source of information on..... putting out fires.I'm certain that said firefighter is an expert on the Zionist Illuminati Lizard People.
Post by: JeffDG on June 29, 2016, 09:37:52 AM
OK, here's what we've got: the RAND Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people -- under the supervision of the reverse vampires -- are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner... We're through the looking glass here people.
Post by: JeffDG on June 29, 2016, 09:39:20 AM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 29, 2016, 09:59:01 AM
Just spoke with Bobby. He said, 'I can't give you my professional opinion because I'm not a Certified Arson Investigator, but I can give you my personal opinion.' Then he proceeded to explain the reasons why they sequence of events that happened as seen in the video that preceded the building collapse do not match what happens in a fire, or in a collision or when accelerant (fuel) is involved. He said, "I believe it was a controlled implosion."
Why doesn't "Bobby" join us here and explain exactly how that was accomplished?
Bobby is someone that I personally know and I can personally vouch for his professional credentials.
Well, that's good enough for me! ;)
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 29, 2016, 10:05:02 AM
Post by: asechrest on June 29, 2016, 10:05:47 AM
Just spoke with Bobby. He said, 'I can't give you my professional opinion because I'm not a Certified Arson Investigator, but I can give you my personal opinion.' Then he proceeded to explain the reasons why they sequence of events that happened as seen in the video that preceded the building collapse do not match what happens in a fire, or in a collision or when accelerant (fuel) is involved. He said, "I believe it was a controlled implosion."
Bobby is someone that I personally know and I can personally vouch for his professional credentials. What are yours?
You're Doing It Wrong™. Seek and critically examine outside and expert opinion from an array of sources, and be sure to consider opinions that do not conform with your own. Your friend the firefighter is not in that group. I could make a good bet that none of your friends are in that group. In fact, a number of them are likely to exacerbate your confirmation bias (and you, theirs).
Post by: Dav8or on June 29, 2016, 10:22:37 AM
Why did this bridge come down? One night a truck driver, hauling a full load of gasoline went around the curve too fast and went off the bridge. The resulting fire burned beyond anybody's ability to put it out. Later that evening, the bridge collapsed, not due to any explosion, but just because of the heat.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/04/29/us/30collapse1.jpg)
Here's a video but I think is is after it had already collapsed. It happened at 3:45 in the morning and this was in the days before everyone carried a video camera around with them, so I don't think there is any actual footage of the collapse.
Gasoline can weaken, soften and even melt steel. An airliner full of fuel can take down a building.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 10:22:57 AM
When an demolition expert takes a building down, she takes out the internal support so that it collapses in on itself. Normally done with some carefully place explosives.
When a fire destroys the strength of the internal support of a building, the building will (a) continue standing and fall over like any other building destroyed by fire or (b) collapse on itself?
Hint: with hindsight, the reason the buildings collapsed was obvious.
Hint: when the internal support structure of a building is compromised, the building will go down. It doesn't matter if internal support is compromised by carefully placed charges or a fire or a boogey man.
I'm reminded of a quote from "Force 10 from Navarone": something like: "well, they may be experts at building things, but I'm an expert at blowing things up..."
A firefighter isn't the best source of information about building demolition or the engineering required for building structural integrity - a firefighter is a good source of information on..... putting out fires.
Sorry buddy, but you're misinformed about the scope of knowledge required to be a Firefighter. He has to know building materials and how they react with heat and how it affects the structure; he has to be able to assess his safety and that of others very quickly. It's not just spray and pray like you make it seem.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 10:26:19 AM
You're Doing It Wrong™. Seek and critically examine outside and expert opinion from an array of sources, and be sure to consider opinions that do not conform with your own. Your friend the firefighter is not in that group. I could make a good bet that none of your friends are in that group. In fact, a number of them are likely to exacerbate your confirmation bias (and you, theirs).Actually I didn't know beforehand what Bobby would have said. I would have reported his comments either way. But you're right, multiple sources...I've seen video clips from others who also have expertise in multiple fields and they also said "controlled demolition". Bobby was just the first person that I've asked that should and would have more expertise than I on the subjects involved.
Post by: Dav8or on June 29, 2016, 10:27:49 AM
History has a way of becoming unreal to those who must contort reality to fit their belief. It is a mental condition. You see it in people to whom the $21 trillion debt, or even their own student loans, are ... not real. Someone will take care of it.
And they do. Declare bankruptcy and start over. Done all the time. We no longer have debtor's prison.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 10:31:37 AM
A nice demonstration of how the twin towers collapsed on 9-11 happened quite by accident several years ago in Oakland, CA. The freeway overpass pictured below failed and came down one night. This overpass's structure is built entirely out of steel. Notice how it has a limp noodle kind of look to it.The towers didn't go limp. The heating in the building would be uneven due to where the airplane impacted, causing that portion of the building to soften. Also, from what I understand the center structure wasn't hit by the airplane and should have been intact.
Why did this bridge come down? One night a truck driver, hauling a full load of gasoline went around the curve too fast and went off the bridge. The resulting fire burned beyond anybody's ability to put it out. Later that evening, the bridge collapsed, not due to any explosion, but just because of the heat.
Gasoline can weaken, soften and even melt steel. An airliner full of fuel can take down a building.
Paraphrased as best I can from Bobby: 'Concrete undergoes an explosion (can't recall the term he used) from the boiling and expansion of the trapped water at temperatures below that of molten steel, this didn't occur in the videos. Also the black smoke at the bottom is indicative of where the pressure forces exist....I would have expected to see fire on the roof of Tower #7 but that didn't happen.'
Post by: asechrest on June 29, 2016, 10:48:49 AM
Actually I didn't know beforehand what Bobby would have said. I would have reported his comments either way. But you're right, multiple sources...I've seen video clips from others who also have expertise in multiple fields and they also said "controlled demolition". Bobby was just the first person that I've asked that should and would have more expertise than I on the subjects involved.
Let me give you a hint: there is no support of any consequence for your conspiracy theory among real experts who have examined the data and even run supercomputer simulations. Be rational!
Post by: Number7 on June 29, 2016, 10:55:38 AM
I guess we need to say, "Welcome to that thread."
If we are going to devolve to that level then let's discuss the Bermuda Triangle and how the Jews are behind all the vessels that disappeared to make their banks more profitable.
You see, it was all targeted sinkings to kill off certain banking heirs so those banks would be weakened in later generations.
I bet you had no idea that evil white slavers were responsible for global warming during the jurassic period, so that - SOMEDAY - the blacks would be completely at the mercy of white masters and have to live off of welfare and food stamps for twenty generations.
Did you all know that racist white republicans killed Abraham Lincoln because he was meddling with their slavery profits?
Seriously. It's time to retire this stupid 9/11 bs.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 11:04:54 AM
Let me give you a hint: there is no support of any consequence for your conspiracy theory among real experts who have examined the data and even run supercomputer simulations. Be rational!
It's controversial and you're showing bias of one group of experts over another group who is EQUALLY QUALIFIED reviewing the same data and running similar simulations.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 11:08:22 AM
When one HAS to believe a lie, no matter how idiotic, they invent facts to support the idiocy.
I guess we need to say, "Welcome to that thread."
If we are going to devolve to that level then let's discuss the Bermuda Triangle and how the Jews are behind all the vessels that disappeared to make their banks more profitable.
You see, it was all targeted sinkings to kill off certain banking heirs so those banks would be weakened in later generations.
I bet you had no idea that evil white slavers were responsible for global warming during the jurassic period, so that - SOMEDAY - the blacks would be completely at the mercy of white masters and have to live off of welfare and food stamps for twenty generations.
Did you all know that racist white republicans killed Abraham Lincoln because he was meddling with their slavery profits?
Seriously. It's time to retire this stupid 9/11 bs.
There's a specific name to the strategy you consistently employ in your debating but since I can't think of it now I'll describe it:
Debater A: Here's why I think Oranges are a better fruit than apples
Debater B (#7): There is no way you can compare Oranges to apples. Since the sun rises over the eastern horizon and pears are green, thusly are grapes...except for purple grapes, and red grapes...not all grapes are green, nor have you specified the type of apple as Granny Smith, etc, etc...
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 11:16:05 AM
There's a specific name to the strategy you consistently employ in your debating but since I can't think of it now I'll describe it:
Debater A: Here's why I think Oranges are a better fruit than apples
Debater B (#7): There is no way you can compare Oranges to apples. Since the sun rises over the eastern horizon and pears are green, thusly are grapes...except for purple grapes, and red grapes...not all grapes are green, nor have you specified the type of apple as Granny Smith, etc, etc...
A "debate strategy" more often used is to ignore facts.
waaaaay too often used.
Post by: Number7 on June 29, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
There's a specific name to the strategy you consistently employ in your debating but since I can't think of it now I'll describe it:
So??? And the name for yours is bullshit.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 11:19:52 AM
Sorry buddy, but you're misinformed about the scope of knowledge required to be a Firefighter. He has to know building materials and how they react with heat and how it affects the structure; he has to be able to assess his safety and that of others very quickly. It's not just spray and pray like you make it seem.
Yeah, I'm misinformed. right.
I'm sure your buddy is an expert at building demolition.
(hint: I know firefighters don't just spray and pray - duh).
You seem to think a firefighter is an expert at building structures and the engineering required... especially for skyscrapers.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 11:26:34 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html
Post by: JeffDG on June 29, 2016, 11:45:56 AM
Warning: if you believe in a conspiracy, don't look at this url.Dammit, now we need to find out how to add PBS to the diagram.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html)
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 12:01:26 PM
Warning: if you believe in a conspiracy, don't look at this url.Believe you me, I WANT to believe the "official storyline", in fact it's in my best interest to do so. With that said, let's accept that I'm not going to convince you and I will review more data in my own time (I've already watched the linked clip) to continue to evolve what I think about it. But as for now, I see no reason to change my conclusions.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html
Post by: Dav8or on June 29, 2016, 12:02:03 PM
The towers didn't go limp. The heating in the building would be uneven due to where the airplane impacted, causing that portion of the building to soften. Also, from what I understand the center structure wasn't hit by the airplane and should have been intact.
Paraphrased as best I can from Bobby: 'Concrete undergoes an explosion (can't recall the term he used) from the boiling and expansion of the trapped water at temperatures below that of molten steel, this didn't occur in the videos. Also the black smoke at the bottom is indicative of where the pressure forces exist....I would have expected to see fire on the roof of Tower #7 but that didn't happen.'
You didn't see concrete explode because skyscrapers are made of steel!! Softened steel is failing steel. The steel structure of the building fails under tremendous weight from the floors above and the impact of that weight falling on the floors below cause a cascading effect going downward. Why is that so hard to believe for you and "Bobby"??
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 29, 2016, 12:12:48 PM
You didn't see concrete explode because skyscrapers are made of steel!! Softened steel is failing steel. The steel structure of the building fails under tremendous weight from the floors above and the impact of that weight falling on the floors below cause a cascading effect going downward. Why is that so hard to believe for you and "Bobby"??The building dropped from the bottom not the floors where the impact happened.
I concede my original position on the bucking of the North and South Towers. The falling building I was referring to is #7
https://youtu.be/8T2_nedORjw?t=2m37s
Post by: Dav8or on June 29, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Warning: if you believe in a conspiracy, don't look at this url.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html
Sadly, I can't get their programs to load. :-\
Post by: asechrest on June 29, 2016, 12:20:38 PM
It's controversial and you're showing bias of one group of experts over another group who is EQUALLY QUALIFIED reviewing the same data and running similar simulations.
You're so invested in this that it's a little embarrassing. If you believe the numbers and qualifications of the experts on each side of this debate are equal, you are willfully blind.
You know, it's ok to be biased toward what is likely to be the truth while maintaining a healthy skepticism. In the case of 9-11, the overwhelming evidence leads to what is likely to be the truth. The live news reports and video, the people who were actually there, the deaths and terror, the aftermath. These things are real. And we won't always be able to immediately understand everything about these events. And the nature of life and the universe is that nothing is ever 100% certain. But it's not ok for a man of intelligence to be this intellectually dishonest. It's not ok to have doubt about some details of an event and then turn that into an entire theory with no basis in evidence. Would you teach your kids to go about life in this manner?
So, let's rewind a bit. You seem to believe that 9-11 was an inside job, and I'll assume you mean that our government took down the towers. Please give us a complete accounting of how and why, including the logistics of the greatest cover-up in the history of civilization, from start to finish. If you can't complete this task, and back it up with facts, evidence, and reason, then why have you settled on this as the truth?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 29, 2016, 12:33:37 PM
The building dropped from the bottom not the floors where the impact happened.
I concede my original position on the bucking of the North and South Towers. The falling building I was referring to is #7
https://youtu.be/8T2_nedORjw?t=2m37s
Marv, all of this BS has been debunked a hundred times. Get with reality.
Post by: Dav8or on June 29, 2016, 12:37:57 PM
The building dropped from the bottom not the floors where the impact happened.
I concede my original position on the bucking of the North and South Towers. The falling building I was referring to is #7
https://youtu.be/8T2_nedORjw?t=2m37s
And here is a rebuttal-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 01:03:34 PM
Sadly, I can't get their programs to load. :-\
I just looked at the transcript.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 01:04:50 PM
The building dropped from the bottom not the floors where the impact happened.
I concede my original position on the bucking of the North and South Towers. The falling building I was referring to is #7
https://youtu.be/8T2_nedORjw?t=2m37s
No, the buildings did NOT drop from the bottom. The collapse started at the about the point of impact and all the falling crap took down the building.
Post by: nddons on June 30, 2016, 05:14:59 AM
Just spoke with Bobby. He said, 'I can't give you my professional opinion because I'm not a Certified Arson Investigator, but I can give you my personal opinion.' Then he proceeded to explain the reasons why they sequence of events that happened as seen in the video that preceded the building collapse do not match what happens in a fire, or in a collision or when accelerant (fuel) is involved. He said, "I believe it was a controlled implosion."Is he a structural engineer?
Bobby is someone that I personally know and I can personally vouch for his professional credentials. What are yours?
Post by: nddons on June 30, 2016, 05:25:03 AM
It's controversial and you're showing bias of one group of experts over another group who is EQUALLY QUALIFIED reviewing the same data and running similar simulations."Bobby" is equally qualified with structural engineers who have years of scientific education in related math and sciences?
Post by: nddons on June 30, 2016, 05:27:11 AM
Believe you me, I WANT to believe the "official storyline", in fact it's in my best interest to do so. With that said, let's accept that I'm not going to convince you and I will review more data in my own time (I've already watched the linked clip) to continue to evolve what I think about it. But as for now, I see no reason to change my conclusions.
Post by: nddons on June 30, 2016, 05:30:53 AM
You didn't see concrete explode because skyscrapers are made of steel!! Softened steel is failing steel. The steel structure of the building fails under tremendous weight from the floors above and the impact of that weight falling on the floors below cause a cascading effect going downward. Why is that so hard to believe for you and "Bobby"??Killjoy!!!
Post by: asechrest on June 30, 2016, 06:03:09 AM
You didn't see concrete explode because skyscrapers are made of steel!! Softened steel is failing steel. The steel structure of the building fails under tremendous weight from the floors above and the impact of that weight falling on the floors below cause a cascading effect going downward. Why is that so hard to believe for you and "Bobby"??
So what you're saying is, a secret element of the Icelandic government infiltrated the company that constructed the twin towers with the sole purpose of pushing them to use steel instead of concrete? Summonabitch!
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2016, 06:13:38 AM
"Bobby" is equally qualified with structural engineers who have years of scientific education in related math and sciences?
http://www.quotes.net/movies/4109
Barnsby:
Now, look. Our experts have been studying that bridge for weeks, and they say it'll blow. I don't know where you learned your job, but I'm talking about the best construction engineers in the business!
Miller:
Yes. Well, they're probably experts at building things, whereas I'm an expert at blowing them up, and you can take it from me that one would need a good eight hours to make a decent job on that bridge.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 30, 2016, 07:28:12 AM
And here is a rebuttal-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
I have nothing to dispute it, but I wonder why this news footage is considered so "rare" if it was recorded with a newsman holding a microphone with the cameraman shooting. It's not like it was a cellphone video that got lost in a drawer somewhere...
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2016, 08:04:41 AM
I have nothing to dispute it, but I wonder why this news footage is considered so "rare" if it was recorded with a newsman holding a microphone with the cameraman shooting. It's not like it was a cellphone video that got lost in a drawer somewhere...
who thinks this stuff is so rare?
google it.
Post by: Kristin on July 15, 2016, 08:26:03 PM
The towers didn't go limp. The heating in the building would be uneven due to where the airplane impacted, causing that portion of the building to soften. Also, from what I understand the center structure wasn't hit by the airplane and should have been intact.
Paraphrased as best I can from Bobby: 'Concrete undergoes an explosion (can't recall the term he used) from the boiling and expansion of the trapped water at temperatures below that of molten steel, this didn't occur in the videos. Also the black smoke at the bottom is indicative of where the pressure forces exist....I would have expected to see fire on the roof of Tower #7 but that didn't happen.'
The towers were made of steel and it didn't have a structural center section as I understand. The structural strength was about the outside, considering vertical steel members. Once 20,000+ gallons of flaming Jet A was introduced into the center section, it acted primarily on the flooring and the attachment bolts. When the floors started to fail, one fell on the floor below, the exterior beams lost their support and started to bow out causing them to fail on compression and the upper floors came crashing down. The lower floor couldn't carry the weight and it just pancaked downward.
The problem with these conspiracies it always requires a degree of cleverness and that a cast of hundreds keep their mouth shut. It is amazing that the same people who think our government is incompetent can also think them able to pull off such a grand, dastardly conspiracy.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 16, 2016, 04:51:28 AM
The problem with these conspiracies it always requires a degree of cleverness and that a cast of hundreds keep their mouth shut. It is amazing that the same people who think our government is incompetent can also think them able to pull off such a grand, dastardly conspiracy.
ah, but that is easily explained by the fact that the government incompetence is deliberate and intended to convince us that THEY are incapable of the level of cleverness needed to pull off these plots.
Isn't it obvious?
Post by: Kristin on July 16, 2016, 06:22:59 PM
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 19, 2016, 12:57:54 PM
Conspiracies do not require dozens to know the real objectives. Every hear of a pawn or patsy?
The problem with these conspiracies it always requires a degree of cleverness and that a cast of hundreds keep their mouth shut. It is amazing that the same people who think our government is incompetent can also think them able to pull off such a grand, dastardly conspiracy.
Post by: asechrest on July 19, 2016, 01:25:39 PM
Conspiracies do not require dozens to know the real objectives. Every hear of a pawn or patsy?
A conspiracy of the scale you are discussing certainly requires dozens to be complicit.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 19, 2016, 01:59:37 PM
Conspiracies do not require dozens to know the real objectives. Every hear of a pawn or patsy?
yeah, just the very few "in the know".... you know, "them"
(cue the clip from "Conspiracy Theory")
Post by: Kristin on July 19, 2016, 09:00:17 PM
Conspiracies do not require dozens to know the real objectives. Every hear of a pawn or patsy?
Yeah, but it just takes one to get a clue and to go for their 15m of fame and call 60 Minutes or the National Enquirer.
Post by: Jaybird180 on July 20, 2016, 12:04:13 PM
Yeah, but it just takes one to get a clue and to go for their 15m of fame and call 60 Minutes or the National Enquirer.You see them all the time, but the American Sheeple don't really care anymore. We're now so numb to scandal it's pathetic.
Post by: Kristin on July 20, 2016, 02:54:35 PM
You see them all the time, but the American Sheeple don't really care anymore. We're now so numb to scandal it's pathetic.
There seems to be a whole lot of not caring going on in the streets of Cleveland today. If they are all not caring, someone must be giving away something really cool to get all those folks in the streets.
Post by: Little Joe on July 24, 2016, 06:24:03 AM
That would probably be George Soros!
..., someone must be giving away something really cool to get all those folks in the streets.