Observer Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 There is also a bunch of "reports" floating around about the guy in Santa Monica who was arrested before he could shoot up the Pride parade. I'm not posting links because frankly they're all suspect. But considering the stuff coming out today about the phone records being altered, I thought it was worth sharing. Take it with a large grain of salt: These reports claim the suspect, Howell, told the arresting officers that he was part of a team of up to 5 other shooters planning attacks on LGBTQ sites in California and Florida -- including Mateen. He allegedly was promised by his recruiters (whoever those were) that he wouldn't be harmed for his actions, but after seeing the Mateen's fate unfold the night before, he realized he was being "set up" to be sacrificed. The story goes that Howell actually turned himself in because he wanted protection, not that there was an anonymous neighborhood tip. Police Chief Seabrooks, again allegedly (can't stress that enough) altered her report after the FBI took over the investigation, deleting the section where Howell said there were other shooters planning to shoot up the Pride parade that day as well as the fact there was a connection to a larger network of some kind. The source of this "story" are several responding officers who have thus far remained anonymous -- which makes it impossible to validate. Which, usually means it's bunk. But it's out there... and in light of the efforts the administration is going through to scrub the Orlando guy's phone call to 911, it's not inconceivable the FBI would attempt to filter out more evidence of the coordinated nature of these attacks... If one truly existed of course. That's not a statement that rational people report on. You get that don't you?
Deranged Rhino Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 That's not a statement that rational people report on. You get that don't you? Of course. Which is why I overused the qualifiers I used and didn't link anything directly. Though, it's actually a story that's gaining steam in light of today's revelations which is why I brought it up.
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 We hold these #0mitted to be self #0mitted, that all #0mitted are created #0mitted. That they are endowed by their #0mitted with certain inalienable #0mitted, that among these are #0mitted, #0mitted, and the Pursuit of #0mitted.
Observer Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 Of course. Which is why I overused the qualifiers I used and didn't link anything directly. My point is that your qualifiers do more to discredit you than the actual tin hat story. I'm not saying I heard this from a credible source, but the Egyptian pyramids may be, as reported on suspect websites, alien testicles.
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 I'm not saying I heard this from a credible source, but the Egyptian pyramids may be, as reported on suspect websites, alien testicles. I think you might have heard that from Deranged Rhino
Deranged Rhino Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) My point is that your qualifiers do more to discredit you than the actual tin hat story. Disagree. When you post as much tongue in cheek stuff as I do, I think it's important to delineate when I'm passing on information I actually trust and/or find credible and when I'm passing on info that I distrust and/or think has a higher chance of being bullshite. (edit for clarity:) This is formed from my own personal belief that no one, certainly not me, knows the truth 100% of the time. And if you simply trust the accepted narrative without vetting new information (even if just to dismiss it), then you're not thinking for yourself, which never, ever ends well. In a subject as touchy and sensitive as this, I think it's actually the proper protocol. I think you might have heard that from Deranged Rhino The pyramids aren't balls. They're pyramids. Edited June 20, 2016 by Deranged Rhino
Azalin Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 The pyramids aren't balls. They're pyramids. Hence why I've never said "suck my pyramids". Until now, that is.
Magox Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 The retarded thing being, it's not Islamic terrorism... How are you certain about this? I'm guessing I have received the same bit of information that you have and there is actual credible evidence from the perpetrator that this is "islamic" terrorism. Sure, it could be a case of him attempting to misdirect everyone into believing that this is something different than what he has said, but that is pure speculation. What I'm saying is that based on the public information that has been released if there were to be some sort of a panel to define what his motives were, the evidence would suggest that it is "islamic" terrorism.
3rdnlng Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 OK, so I decide to go out and shoot 100 or so people. Am I going to claim I am doing it because I may be a little gayish and despise myself for it, or am I going to claim it is for my religion of Islam and open up the possibility that I might end up in Heaven with 72 virgins at my disposal? Tough choice man.
unbillievable Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 OK, so I decide to go out and shoot 100 or so people. Am I going to claim I am doing it because I may be a little gayish and despise myself for it, or am I going to claim it is for my religion of Islam and open up the possibility that I might end up in Heaven with 72 virgins at my disposal? Tough choice man. Why would a gay man want to be surrounded by 72 women?
B-Man Posted June 21, 2016 Author Posted June 21, 2016 Again.......................from Ambassador Bolton's article in reply #2283 We will, in the coming days, doubtless hear that the terrorist was a lone wolf, that he did not belong to any known terrorist organization, that there are no wider threats. In particular, those who are blind to the terrorist threat will downplay even the incontrovertible fact that Mateen pledged loyalty to ISIS as he committed his murders. Two critical conclusions follow immediately from Sunday’s tragic reality, one with immediate implications for our domestic safety, and one for conducting the broader international war against terrorism. First, the number of true “lone wolf” terrorists is infinitesimal. The implications of that phrase, namely that terrorism is not a widespread and still-growing phenomenon, are profoundly impairing our ability to protect innocent civilians. Terrorists like Mateen are not “one offs” who emerge randomly, unexpectedly and inexplicably, perhaps victims of mental disorders. The evidence is now indisputable that we are confronting a far larger threat, albeit not one organized conveniently for our understanding. This threat is unmistakably ideological, as Sunday’s Orlando attack and the apparently thwarted attack in Santa Monica demonstrate. We simply must start acknowledging that terrorists -- whether ISIS, Al Qaeda, or others -- are not structured like governments or corporations. They are not staffed with desk-bound bureaucrats in grey suits, arranged pursuant to a complex, hierarchical organization chart. They do not send memoranda to each other through a complex clearance process, with copies distributed far and wide. Nor do they function like spy networks and subversive political movements of days gone by. They do not carry party identification cards. They do not communicate through dead drops, brush passes, invisible ink and microdots. This is not an age where FBI agents have the capacity to infiltrate the “cells” that do not exist or shadow the agents who are running the actual terrorists. Instead, it is not just the West that has mastered digital communications and Internet social networks. The terrorists are just as good at it, for their purposes better than we are at understanding their techniques and their success. Actors like Mateen are not rigorously following a critical path chart in ISIS headquarters. Instead, it is precisely the disconnected, unpredictable timing of the terrorist attacks, not necessarily staged in advance, that adds to their devastating effect.
keepthefaith Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 How are you certain about this? I'm guessing I have received the same bit of information that you have and there is actual credible evidence from the perpetrator that this is "islamic" terrorism. Sure, it could be a case of him attempting to misdirect everyone into believing that this is something different than what he has said, but that is pure speculation. What I'm saying is that based on the public information that has been released if there were to be some sort of a panel to define what his motives were, the evidence would suggest that it is "islamic" terrorism. One concern I have is that we'll never get the full story. With the FBI not looking great after letting the killer off the hook, their motives may be more aligned with the WH in minimizing the radical islamic influence.
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Again.......................from Ambassador Bolton's article in reply #2283 We will, in the coming days, doubtless hear that the terrorist was a lone wolf, that he did not belong to any known terrorist organization, that there are no wider threats. In particular, those who are blind to the terrorist threat will downplay even the incontrovertible fact that Mateen pledged loyalty to ISIS as he committed his murders. Two critical conclusions follow immediately from Sunday’s tragic reality, one with immediate implications for our domestic safety, and one for conducting the broader international war against terrorism. First, the number of true “lone wolf” terrorists is infinitesimal. The implications of that phrase, namely that terrorism is not a widespread and still-growing phenomenon, are profoundly impairing our ability to protect innocent civilians. Terrorists like Mateen are not “one offs” who emerge randomly, unexpectedly and inexplicably, perhaps victims of mental disorders. The evidence is now indisputable that we are confronting a far larger threat, albeit not one organized conveniently for our understanding. This threat is unmistakably ideological, as Sunday’s Orlando attack and the apparently thwarted attack in Santa Monica demonstrate. We simply must start acknowledging that terrorists -- whether ISIS, Al Qaeda, or others -- are not structured like governments or corporations. They are not staffed with desk-bound bureaucrats in grey suits, arranged pursuant to a complex, hierarchical organization chart. They do not send memoranda to each other through a complex clearance process, with copies distributed far and wide. Nor do they function like spy networks and subversive political movements of days gone by. They do not carry party identification cards. They do not communicate through dead drops, brush passes, invisible ink and microdots. This is not an age where FBI agents have the capacity to infiltrate the “cells” that do not exist or shadow the agents who are running the actual terrorists. Instead, it is not just the West that has mastered digital communications and Internet social networks. The terrorists are just as good at it, for their purposes better than we are at understanding their techniques and their success. Actors like Mateen are not rigorously following a critical path chart in ISIS headquarters. Instead, it is precisely the disconnected, unpredictable timing of the terrorist attacks, not necessarily staged in advance, that adds to their devastating effect. Bolton's article was so self-contradictory it's not even worth taking seriously.
/dev/null Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Bolton's article was so self-contradictory it's not even worth taking seriously. Ramsey Bolton?
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Ramsey Bolton? Now there's a man who knows what terrorism really is.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Hence why I've never said "suck my pyramids". Until now, that is. How are you certain about this? I'm guessing I have received the same bit of information that you have and there is actual credible evidence from the perpetrator that this is "islamic" terrorism. Sure, it could be a case of him attempting to misdirect everyone into believing that this is something different than what he has said, but that is pure speculation. What I'm saying is that based on the public information that has been released if there were to be some sort of a panel to define what his motives were, the evidence would suggest that it is "islamic" terrorism. You're right, no one can be certain whether this was an act of an outsider who claimed association with a hate group or if it was truly a concerted effort of a terror cell operating inside the US. And that's the problem with trying to turn every crime into terrorism. It takes something complex and nuanced and simplifies it down to something that's borderline useless. But when we have a federal government who's completely undermined the average citizens' constitutional rights to due process and privacy over the past 16 years, as well as demolished the bedrock that this country was founded upon (namely that the citizens are supposed to be the watchdogs for the government, rather than how we're operating now where the government treats every citizen as a suspect) -- this type of conundrum should be expected to continue. One concern I have is that we'll never get the full story. With the FBI not looking great after letting the killer off the hook, their motives may be more aligned with the WH in minimizing the radical islamic influence. You won't. At least not through official channels. Everything is scrubbed, filtered, and presented with a specific tilt depending on which outlet you're getting your information.
Observer Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Why would a gay man want to be surrounded by 72 women? As I hear it, it's 72 virgins, not 72 women. I suspect a Koran scholar can settle this but I don't feel like Googling it. I like the thought of the hetero terrorists sauntering into the afterlife budoir only to find it fiilled wall to wall with 72 dudes ready to host a sausage fest.
Azalin Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 As I hear it, it's 72 virgins, not 72 women. I suspect a Koran scholar can settle this but I don't feel like Googling it. I like the thought of the hetero terrorists sauntering into the afterlife budoir only to find it fiilled wall to wall with 72 dudes ready to host a sausage fest. I've heard (but have no idea if it's accurate) that that's not an accurate translation, that it supposedly translates to "72 raisins" and not 72 virgins. If that's true, then there's going to be a hell of a lot of pissed-off martyrs. 72 raisins isn't even 2 scoops.
3rdnlng Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Why would a gay man want to be surrounded by 72 women? Did you note the word "claim" that I used? When you do, you will understand how it doesn't !@#$ing matter. You're right, no one can be certain whether this was an act of an outsider who claimed association with a hate group or if it was truly a concerted effort of a terror cell operating inside the US. And that's the problem with trying to turn every crime into terrorism. It takes something complex and nuanced and simplifies it down to something that's borderline useless. But when we have a federal government who's completely undermined the average citizens' constitutional rights to due process and privacy over the past 16 years, as well as demolished the bedrock that this country was founded upon (namely that the citizens are supposed to be the watchdogs for the government, rather than how we're operating now where the government treats every citizen as a suspect) -- this type of conundrum should be expected to continue. You won't. At least not through official channels. Everything is scrubbed, filtered, and presented with a specific tilt depending on which outlet you're getting your information. Can you honestly speculate that a mass shooting of a 100 or so people isn't terrorism, oh deranged one?
FireChan Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Did you note the word "claim" that I used? When you do, you will understand how it doesn't !@#$ing matter. Can you honestly speculate that a mass shooting of a 100 or so people isn't terrorism, oh deranged one? Every mass shooting isn't terrorism.
Recommended Posts