Biff, I don't want to debate Sandy Hook in this thread or any other.  The debate is over for me.  I only meant to indicate that false flags attacks are quite common yet most people refuse to believe their honest altruistic government could never do a thing like that.  But they do.  They even teach false flag tactics in Special Forces training.  Here are 53 declassified or admitted false flags, including many used to start wars:  

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/x...tacks.html

 

Whenever a horrific event is used to try to quickly push through legislation - especially if it's legislation the Administration has long dreamed of - I look for evidence of a false flag.  I also look for a LACK of evidence supporting the official narrative.  My working hypothesis for Orlando is that there were multiple shooters and Omar may have been a patsy or just unlucky.  I don't know if it was a government operation or a terror cell, but with the use of FBI operatives in so many terror plots they are often the same thing.  The leaping into action with gun legislation - the specific legislation Obama just said he wanted but "because of the NRA" he can't have.  That was two weeks ago in a Town Hall meeting he said that.  Now everyone in government and the media is chiming in that this is exactly what we need, including so-called "conservatives".  I smell a rat. 

---

Biff, I don't want to debate Sandy Hook in this thread or any other.  The debate is over for me.  I only meant to indicate that false flags attacks are quite common yet most people refuse to believe their honest altruistic government could never do a thing like that.  But they do.  They even teach false flag tactics in Special Forces training.  Here are 53 declassified or admitted false flags, including many used to start wars:  

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/x...tacks.html

 

Whenever a horrific event is used to try to quickly push through legislation - especially if it's legislation the Administration has long dreamed of - I look for evidence of a false flag.  I also look for a LACK of evidence supporting the official narrative.  My working hypothesis for Orlando is that there were multiple shooters and Omar may have been a patsy or just unlucky.  I don't know if it was a government operation or a terror cell, but with the use of FBI operatives in so many terror plots they are often the same thing.  The leaping into action with gun legislation - the specific legislation Obama just said he wanted but "because of the NRA" he can't have.  That was two weeks ago in a Town Hall meeting he said that.  Now everyone in government and the media is chiming in that this is exactly what we need, including so-called "conservatives".  I smell a rat. 

 

Who was the rat when Reagan supported the assault weapon ban? Or was he not a true conservative?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Jt, I urge you to go and read the wall street journal article I linked. Additionally there are several sources that have reported that the idiot monster that did this claimed allegiance to two middle eastern factions that are opposed to each other... and there's a possibility that the dude was a self loathing homosexual.


I'm providing information to you, this information is from news sites that go against my political leanings. As I said, I may not be completely objective. But I an being as objective as I can be.

 

I've read a ton of information.  None of it convinces me that the father is to be trusted by what he says.  Doesn't make him dangerous, but his views towards homosexuals were obviously ingrained in some ways into his son.  Again, this was the crux of my response to you.  I don't trust the father.  I'm guessing by what you have said you do.  

 

The monster may have been all wrapped into one.  He may have been influenced in some ways by both factions and self loathing homosexual.  Who knows?  The point being is he killed 49 (I think that is the total officially) people and targeted them and then called during his rampage claiming the attacks were done in ISIS name (something along those lines).  I'm not really even sure what your point is?

---

Who was the rat when Reagan supported the assault weapon ban? Or was he not a true conservative?

 

I don't play the "yeah, but your guy did it too" game, especially since I don't have a "guy".  The last time I voted for anybody you've heard of was 24 years ago.  If Reagan was for the ban he was wrong, as the ban changed nothing.  Clinton also knew it would change nothing.  His own people told him that. 

---

http://youtu.be/H_GMyHoVPqk


Survivor speaks on motive

---

Stockholm...

---

 

Shooting survivor, Luis Burbano, claims he barricaded other people inside while he fled outside and held the exit door shut. Seems pretty heartless of an act and even more cold when he recalls the incidents.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://youtu.be/X75iFs10g8A'>https://youtu.be/X75iFs10g8A</a>


Luis Burbano - IMDb actor and here's his page

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://m.imdb.com/name/nm3483499/'>http://m.imdb.com/name/nm3483499/</a>

 

Not sure I believe it's a false-flag.

 

He said someone had a bullet the size of a finger in their leg, which isn't true. He uses a lot of technical terminology, too. He's definitely comfortable in front of the camera.

---

While I might modify that to say individuals are responsible, I think I get what you are saying. 

 

Still, for discussions' sake, let me throw this out and see what you think. A lot of folks get upset when a city or state has, say, the 10 commandments on government property. They object to the violation of separation of church and state. If such separation is good, why is it so? Also, if such separation is good, what are we to make of areas where Sharia is in effect? 

 

I am not sure of the actual impact of Sharia in terms of, say, homosexuality. I have read some reports that say 'dozens' of homosexuals were killed in an area through Sharia. Given what I understand about percentages of homosexuals, dozens seems to be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the likely practicing homosexuals, so I wonder what that actual societal impact is. Any death is a tragedy. I am just trying to get a handle on what happens in a society with Sharia. Also, even if the state 'only' kills dozens, are there many more killed without recrimination by private individuals? Trying to get an idea of the extent of the repression.

 

I am not saying that we need to go on an anti-jihad against societies with Sharia. But others have raised the issue as one impacting individuals. Wondering if there is any way to delineate how much is possible ideological versus well, the standard issues of power, money, and revenge.

 

Hey BiffSkppy,

 

I wrote this whole thing in response and it is now floating out there in the ether of accidental deletion land...  

 

Let me just say that I agree in part that individuals are also responsible.  But the power of the individual comes from gaining the acceptance via culture.  I don't have a sociological background, but I would submit to you that a culture of violence and barbarism, while ultimately acted upon by at the individual level usually has a "vanguard" (to go back to politics) that usually helps propel those group into a certain direction.  Generally a subset of the culture made up of a smaller group of individuals will move a culture in a certain direction.  This can be seen in history, from the Bolshevicks, to the Nazis, to the Iranian Revolution.  While there generally tends to be an individual "leader" the driver is the smaller subset, because in my mind, the individual would be shouted down if not for his supporters.  

 

Now speaking of Sharia...  I've been waiting for a revolution where Iranians take back thier country from the theocracy that runs it.  But, I don't think it's that simple.  A revolution is messy, and as we've seen with Egypt, Yemen, and Syria, it can do more harm than good.  However, there is a slow movement in Iran towards westernization.  As the theocracy is aging and dying of the youth of Iran that are now in thier 30's and 40's since the revolution are raising kids that are not into rule by religion.  A slow progression from hyper conservatism to more liberal and western ideas is how Iran has been moving since the death of the Ayatollah.

 

To me, this is far more beneficial of a movement than good ole 'Murricah getting involved like we did with Iraq.  

 

The bottom line, at least in my mind is that violoence and war is usually not the best approach to correcting things.  Of course, in Iraq and Syria, it looks like we don't have a choice because we broke it.  But I think it's best to leave Iran to it's own evolution.  

---

Stop importing people from parts of the world that don't share our basic values.

 

 

Would this include the current owner of the Jaguars?

---

;

;

It appears the feds have lost the ex-wife?

---

Hey BiffSkppy,

 

I wrote this whole thing in response and it is now floating out there in the ether of accidental deletion land...  

 

Let me just say that I agree in part that individuals are also responsible.  But the power of the individual comes from gaining the acceptance via culture.  I don't have a sociological background, but I would submit to you that a culture of violence and barbarism, while ultimately acted upon by at the individual level usually has a "vanguard" (to go back to politics) that usually helps propel those group into a certain direction.  Generally a subset of the culture made up of a smaller group of individuals will move a culture in a certain direction.  This can be seen in history, from the Bolshevicks, to the Nazis, to the Iranian Revolution.  While there generally tends to be an individual "leader" the driver is the smaller subset, because in my mind, the individual would be shouted down if not for his supporters.  

 

Now speaking of Sharia...  I've been waiting for a revolution where Iranians take back thier country from the theocracy that runs it.  But, I don't think it's that simple.  A revolution is messy, and as we've seen with Egypt, Yemen, and Syria, it can do more harm than good.  However, there is a slow movement in Iran towards westernization.  As the theocracy is aging and dying of the youth of Iran that are now in thier 30's and 40's since the revolution are raising kids that are not into rule by religion.  A slow progression from hyper conservatism to more liberal and western ideas is how Iran has been moving since the death of the Ayatollah.

 

To me, this is far more beneficial of a movement than good ole 'Murricah getting involved like we did with Iraq.  

 

The bottom line, at least in my mind is that violoence and war is usually not the best approach to correcting things.  Of course, in Iraq and Syria, it looks like we don't have a choice because we broke it.  But I think it's best to leave Iran to it's own evolution.  

 

Hate when that happens. While I love the idea of discussion boards, the tech still needs a bit of improvement. 

 

Also, When you can't get the whole thread, you forget what has happened before sometimes, like in this case. :-) Whatever you said that I replied to with individual, I probably have some agreement with as well. For example, I ascribe some merit to the whole Chomsky/Herman model of media relations, although I don't think it is as conscious a process as sometimes explained. And yes, there needs to be a sufficient mass, otherwise you don't really get the momentum. Part of why I stress individuals can be seen from something Jagibelieve (I think) said as a taking away point from the thread, 'When all else fails, blame Bush'. Umm, no, we elected him. We are responsible for our society, even if you believe in a cultural elite, left or right wing media co-option, or lizard people. </rant>

 

I hope you are right about Iran. The Pew Research earlier in the thread showed that younger survey respondents were actually more conservative on some Sharia issues, so that is concerning, but we will see.

 

Re Iraq, I presume you mean GW2, as I think GW1 was one of those rare cases where violence is necessary and generally accepted. We could drill down with issues of collateral damage and just war theory, but I digress. I only bring it up because I do believe that America can have a positive influence, but I don't think we usually have anywhere near a level of public discourse that is substantive enough to guide our policies. GW2 helped to demonstrate that to me. Heck, this thread is a pretty good example. You could probably boil it down to about three our four main issues, but even getting clear and focused discussion by more than two or three people is difficult. And even the rather slipshod discussion here is more substantive that most mass media coverage I have seen. I am encouraged by some elements, such as the sharing of info (shout out to realtorpat for the pbs doc link) and the discussion of views between people who seem to have divergent opinions (thanks, jj). But even that seems to tail off, and the discussions never seem to accomplish much of substance. </rant>

 

 

TLDR version - America - BRILLIANT design, founding fathers were cool, we as citizens are too damned lazy to make democracy work well.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Looks like this was shot in a studio, so the outdoor background is really a green screen.  This doesn't prove the shooting was fake, but why would they take an interview shot in a studio and make us think it was done outside?  You can clearly see ceiling lights reflected in her glasses. 

 

https://youtu.be/VGMnb_K420c

---

Looks like this was shot in a studio, so the outdoor background is really a green screen.  This doesn't prove the shooting was fake, but why would they take an interview shot in a studio and make us think it was done outside?  You can clearly see ceiling lights reflected in her glasses. 

 

https://youtu.be/VGMnb_K420c

 

For dramatic effect. It doesn't mean her story is fake.

 

"See look at me feel bad for me. disarm America, ok?" is the agenda here.

---

Looks like this was shot in a studio, so the outdoor background is really a green screen.  This doesn't prove the shooting was fake, but why would they take an interview shot in a studio and make us think it was done outside?  You can clearly see ceiling lights reflected in her glasses. 

 

https://youtu.be/VGMnb_K420c

 

Sorry, Byron, not going to put you on ignore list, but you know my position as stated in post 513. If you want to post a new thread and label it Orlando is a False Flag (or whatever terminology you use) I will address it there, and at least consider the possibility your are sincere. But these little occasional one-offs from you followed by ignoring an opportunity to have a substantive discussion are not encouraging me to want to deal with you. From your prior posts, hoaxes and false flags existed before Orlando and are a distinct issue. You want to address it in substance, fine. You want to keep dropping little snippets, well, refer to post 513.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

define "fake" because it did happen.  was it facilitated by the feds? that i can believe given the info coming out about this.

---

Hey Biff, this thread is about the Orlando event.  It's the place to drop little snippets about the event.

 

badger says they faked the interview "for dramatic effect".  Really?  What "drama" was added by faking the location?  What is gained versus what is potentially lost if the ruse is discovered?

---

Hey Biff, this thread is about the Orlando event.  It's the place to drop little snippets about the event.

 

badger says they faked the interview "for dramatic effect".  Really?  What "drama" was added by faking the location?  What is gained versus what is potentially lost if the ruse is discovered?

 

i guess you can ask GMA producers. they obviously had their reasons.  if the whole thing is fake and she's a paid actress, why do they need a green screen? you cant fake an interview outside?  your reasoning that because it's in a studio means the whole thing is a fraud, does not hold water.

---

Sure you can fake an interview outside.  But it would look funny if bystanders saw them rehearsing and doing multiple takes, getting instructions from a producer, etc. 

---

 

 

Well, my initial thought is to wonder whether you are including war in your definition of violence. This is not to say that war is always wrong, but it is usually violent. Also, do you consider Germany, Russia, Japan, Western? Not sure, but Stalin alone might outrank all Muslim killers combined in the last 100 years. 


 

 

It feels like we're moving into the weeds a little bit now.  Stalin was the dictator of a country and wielded power over millions of others, not sure how that enters into this discussion.  But in general no I wouldn't include collateral damage of war in this discussion as I'm not sure how that compares to citizens actively targeting other innocent citizens.   We're talking about individuals that have no power over anyone except the power and desire to snuff out your life if you are unprepared to defend yourself and at the same time these people are showing solidarity for an ideology and religion.  Killings associated with the Islamic ideology and religion far outweigh any other type of killing that is associated with any other type of ideology.  Secondly we're not under a dictatorship where ideas and solutions don't flow freely.  There is a mechanism for change of policy if there is support for it.

 

 

Well, I am not sure, but I think that the total number of deaths caused by Muslim immigrants is greater than other immigrants. I draw this sketchy conclusion from the list
here
 .  I think one of the killers in the 2015 California killings was an immigrant. I am not aware of any of the others on the list being immigrants of any kind. So I guess it is Muslim immigrants 1, Non-Muslim immigrants 0. How you get conquering a nation from that I have absolutely no idea. Allow me to put it this way - If there were 70,000 cases such as San Bernardino, the number of civilians killed would not equal the number of civilians the U.S. has killed in Iraq since 2000. Yet Iraq is still around. Dysfunctional yes, but still there.


 

 

Well this requires some foresight on your part as domestic Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil is relatively new in the grand scheme of things as we have been further away from the source than the rest of the world.  But it's clearly increasing in frequency at home and has been a major problem abroad for a very long time.   If you don't get that example of 50 million new immigrants from anywhere over a short span of time can conquer a nation as it currently exists, we should probably just stop here and move on to other topics.  I'm already growing tired of this and have spent too much time responding and should have known better than to comment in a political thread, and when the sarcasm begins it usually signals the beginning of the end of legitimate debate.

 

Regarding 50 million new immigrants, however, it's more than just the potential additional violence their ideology may bring.  It's a significant increase in a voting block of a people who's ideas on a lot of things don't jive with the current majority populations of Europe or the U.S.  I never insinuated that we are conquered or will be in a couple of years.  As I explained, the example was extreme to make the point that if we were already committed to such a policy and had to poll the current citizens of this country where they would prefer to receive these immigrants from that overwhelmingly I believe the answer would be from the non-Muslim population sample and for good reason.  I think if you were being honest you'd choose the same unless perhaps you are a Muslim.  I'm not sure if your intent is to actually minimize the San Bernardino event, but comparing it to casualties of war is again apples to oranges.  We know the circumstances surrounding the victims demise in that case.  We don't know the circumstances of each individual infraction of civilian casualties in Iraq and quite frankly it's performed by uniformed individuals in a war zone vs. citizen against citizen with ideology being cited.

 

 

From what I understand, the San Bernardino example is a case where an immigrant was granted residency based upon marriage. I also believe they were planning the attack prior to the engagement. I am wondering, though, are you stating that you believe it should be the U.S. policy not to allow citizens to ever marry Muslims of a different nation? Or they can marry, but not allow the spouse into the U.S.? I really don't quite get that based on one example.

 

I've espoused no specific policy, only wondered aloud do we need to continue bringing in new citizens en masse who are committed to an ideology that's grounded in violence and whose rulebook allows and encourages the targeting of non-military targets in order to terrorize the citizenry.  And on top of that whose 2nd generation children are now carrying out attacks here in the name of Islam.  I get how difficult it would be to implement such an idea aside from just putting a moratorium on immigration from majority Muslim countries.  That's a band-aid not a true solution though.  Perhaps the best answer is to just have a highly publicized $1 million dollar reward (or whatever is feasible and significant enough to illicit a proper tip off)  for anyone tipping the authorities off about any planned attacks, islam related or otherwise.  If they can give $1 million away on game shows, surely they can give it away for saving lives from potential perpetrators.

<div> 
 

Even if you go back generations, I guess you then include a few others. But we are all descended from immigrants. Does the Virginia shooting mean we should exclude Asians? I also didn't see any weighing of the benefits of immigration. What if we lost a few current citizens but save the lives of 10-fold new citizens. 100-fold? I realize this is a hypothetical, just trying to get an understanding of your thoughts on relative values.


 

Did the Virginia Asian man cite an ideology?  I don't recall that he did other than mocking those that had more than he did.  And yeah we're all descended from immigrants and if you take that thought to it's conclusion no one can justly own property anywhere because it all traces back and belongs to someone else right?  We can get as wishy washy as you want but it ultimately ends up an argument for anarchy and good luck with that.  Again, we're moving way into the weeds with your Virginia example.  There are plenty of bat [BLEEP] crazy people that go on shooting rampages.  Bat [BLEEP] crazy isn't exclusive to one ideology, but there does appear to be more than their fair share of bat [BLEEP] crazy within the Muslim community.  I guess let's just get to the point and ask if you agree or disagree with that statement or not?

 

 

</div>

---

Look at 3:10 in the video.  Behind the lady is some kind of yellow wall, some foliage and the outline of a stop sign.  At 3:13 the host hugs her - no wall, no foliage, no stop sign.  Green screen.

---