Circumstantial link between Ft Hood and Va Tech shooters

[jmdrake]

Since people want to focus on circumstantial evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110703326.html

And:

http://www.infowars.com/ft-hood-killer-part-of-government-mind-control-program/

[Liberty Star]

That is remarkable connection, two of the most famous mass shooters in recent American history attended the same school.

Based on details out so far, I had actually thought that their motives are also somewhat similar - a self built image of "persecution" or unfair treatment by the world around them. Vteach's asian shooter had imagined himself to be persecuted like Jesus if I recall that news right.

[Dieseler]

Extreme cruelty to animals later in career.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:PVFoZHvzzkDhhM:http://www.gambling911.com/files/publisher/Michael-Vick-NFL-072109L_0.jpg
Mass murder shooting on campus.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:kcDaOB3CZfIyyM:http://tomdiaz.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cho.jpg
Beheading on Campus
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:uKyFLiaoIXY7XM:http://stoptheinvasionoforegon.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/470virginiatech-behead.jpg
Ft. Hood Massacre.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:GPU8__UsuSppHM:http://www.chroniclejournal.com/includes/CP_stories/223/223193.jpg

Damn, something in the water?

[pcosmar]

Damn, something in the water?

Or in the Meds.

Do you believe that nothing was learned from the Huge Financial Investment in MK Ultra?
Any proof the program was ended?

[ramallamamama]

Fort Hood Mystery

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy72.1.html

by Michael Gaddy

The facts as presented by the Army and the media reference the shooting at Fort Hood just don’t compute. While I routinely dismiss any "facts" disseminated by the Army and the state’s propaganda wing, sometimes referred to as the mainstream media (MSM), there are some glaring inconsistencies in what has been reported about this tragedy.

First is the report the perpetrator was dead and then hours later the revelation that he was still alive. Exactly how long does it take to determine if a person is dead or alive? Could it be no one knew whom the shooter or shooters were and a story had to be concocted for public consumption? What happened to the two other "suspects" that were detained? What did they do to qualify as suspects and more importantly, what information surfaced that led to their release? One of the suspects reportedly stated he "was with the shooter."

Second is the number of victims from a single shooter. Let us not forget this shooting did not occur at the mall, it occurred on a military installation where the victims had been trained in military tactics and some were combat veterans. We are to believe they did nothing to stop a single shooter and he was allowed to reload several times and continue shooting and the only thing that stopped him was the arrival of a police officer after the gunman had gunned down over 40 people?

And how so very convenient for the state, a perpetrator who was both anti-war and a Muslim; just doesn’t get any better than that. Could this be an example of following the philosophy of Rahm Emanuel on dealing with a crisis?

Third was the shutting down of communications in and around Ft. Hood for hours. While the Army and the media will explain this in various scenarios, it also provided the Army with a chance to create whatever story it was they wanted to provide the public on the terrible tragedy. Of course we all know the Army would never distort or lie about the facts involving the deaths of innocents. Well, there is that My Lai thing. People on the ground have told me cell phone towers were jammed to prevent unauthorized dissemination of information after the shooting. Again, the Army would not want any information contrary to the company line emerging from this disaster.

All too convenient for the Army was the rapid release of negative information related to the alleged shooter. It was said he received a negative evaluation report and that he had caused "red flags" to be raised some months ago concerning emails. Do we know anything this detailed about the "suspects" who were released? The caveat was added that it was unclear as to whether the suspect was the author of those emails. So, months ago, alarms were raised about emails the suspect might have sent, yet, in all those months the Army has been unable to determine who wrote them. Yeah, right. If red flags were in fact raised months ago, why did the Army do nothing? Going back to the 9/11 paradigm, we see the same evidence exhibited: the state had prior warnings but did not act on them. This proves unequivocally the government is either incompetent or complicit in both events. Yet, the state would have us all unarmed and depending on them for protection.

President Obama pledged, "to get answers to every single question about this event" but he also promised an end to signing statements, a transparent government, no more torture of detainees, and many more lies.

There has been speculation on the Internet that the shooting could have been a revolt against the Army from soldiers faced with stop-loss and multiple combat tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. While there is no evidence to support this theory, there is also no evidence to support the official Army version of events. Suicides among military personnel and veterans are at alarming levels, yet the Department of Defense does more to hide these facts than it does to deal with them.

The last thing the state can let happen is an awakening by its enforcement arm (military and LE) that they are nothing but tools of oppression and in fact, slaves to the monster they serve. While the military is trained and encouraged to kill and bomb in the name of the state, they are forbidden the means of protection for themselves and their loved ones once they are outside the killing zones designated by the state.

All is not normal inside the military community. This is not just seen in our military, instruments of oppression in other countries are revolting as well.

While it is doubtful we will ever learn the truth of exactly what happened at Fort Hood, we know with a degree of certainty the truth will never be revealed by the Army or the media. Could this have been a false flag event to divert the attention of the American public from the debates and planned demonstrations against the health care fiasco? Could it have simply been another MK Ultra event to further demonize the anti-war element in this country and to lay another crime at the feet of the current villain du jour: Muslims? Could there be a connection between this alleged shooter and his fellow Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, other than an oblique reference to Cho having a Muslim influence?

One must always ask this question when faced with a story that is issued and controlled by the State: Cui Bono? Wonderful, is it not, the state is empowered with the unique ability to investigate its own lies and the power of the media and academia to demonize any who would question its veracity, and the support of Boobus, whose livelihood depends on the state’s power to redistribute the wealth of the nation from producers to parasites.

November 9, 2009

[Pericles]

Word is that the two other "suspects" were GIs who had weapons in their vehicles (contrary to policy) and were in the process of getting their weapons in order to take out the shooter, when the police force arrived, and detained them. A case of good guys not being able to recognize other good guys, which is the main danger an armed citizen faces when the police do show up on the scene.

[WClint]

They were nuts there is no conspiracy, the only thing you can not accept is that non whites go nuts sometimes...

[GunnyFreedom]

Word is that the two other "suspects" were GIs who had weapons in their vehicles (contrary to policy) and were in the process of getting their weapons in order to take out the shooter, when the police force arrived, and detained them. A case of good guys not being able to recognize other good guys, which is the main danger an armed citizen faces when the police do show up on the scene.

That doesn't surprise me. In fact, that makes perfect sense.

Mind you, for some of the posters on the RPF's it's just not as much fun if it isn't some vast government conspiracy.

Here we come to the heart of why most of the American body politic cannot take the Ron Paul people seriously. Apparently a significant portion of our group has the distinct ability of selective observation. And observations are only selected according to what promotes the current conspiracy de jour. Any observation that contradicts that conspiracy must be emphatically rejected and denied.

[Dieseler]

Or in the Meds.

Do you believe that nothing was learned from the Huge Financial Investment in MK Ultra?
Any proof the program was ended?

That's some creepy stuff man.
I reckon we gotta give VT the benefit of the doubt with a raised brow for now but if this trend continues... I dunno..

[jmdrake]

That doesn't surprise me. In fact, that makes perfect sense.

Mind you, for some of the posters on the RPF's it's just not as much fun if it isn't some vast government conspiracy.

Here we come to the heart of why most of the American body politic cannot take the Ron Paul people seriously. Apparently a significant portion of our group has the distinct ability of selective observation. And observations are only selected according to what promotes the current conspiracy de jour. Any observation that contradicts that conspiracy must be emphatically rejected and denied.

:rolleyes: Like the "selective observation" that the Ft Hood shooter went to the same mosque as the 9/11 hijackers? That's what floors me about some folks. Everybody is a conspiracy theorist! Some people are just too stubborn to admit it! For example long after the Bush administration denied this 70% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Now maybe you weren't part of that 70%. But were you actively out trying to dispel that myth? Or were you propagating the circumstantial evidence that pointed to the possibility that it might be true? Either we look at everything or we look at nothing.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

They were nuts there is no conspiracy, the only thing you can not accept is that non whites go nuts sometimes...

So then you also dismiss the "conspiracy theory" that there was a connection between the Ft Hood shooter and the 9/11 hijackers? Cool!

[GTMomma]

Not a regular poster here, but I still check up on things from time to time. I can't take this article too seriously seeing as I live on Fort Hood about a mile from where the attack happened and most of the assumptions I've seen on various conspiracy theorists sites are just outright false.

For one, if the cell phone towers were jammed, why was I able to sporadically speak with my husband during the lockdown via cell phone? Two, there were over 170 witnesses in the SRP building. I'd think between them, somebody was able to get a good look at the shooter and positively identify him. I don't think Hasan is some sort of scapegoat here. A few local Muslims who knew Hasan personally have stated that he was misguided and misinterpreted the Koran and that there was something wrong with him.

In that area, there is not only the several SRP buildings, there is also the Howze Theatre which was holding 600 people and the Education Center (where my husband was) which had who knows how many people. We're talking about approx. 1000 people in one area connected by a large parking lot. Don't people think it would be difficult to keep that many people quiet? Those people were texting and twittering and calling the local news IMMEDIATELY following the attack. It wasn't until the story became more well-known that we started having issues with cell phones. My home phone was not affected. I'd think if the Army was trying to keep everyone quiet, they'd disable the landlines too.

The only thing I do find alarming and unresolved is the report of multiple shooters at various sites on post. I want to know why the local news reported that there was a shooter at the PX and why a woman in my neighborhood was tackled at the PX by another well-meaning customer trying to protect her. She spent the night in the hospital. Also, we now have soldiers with their weapons guarding the schools, youth centers, day cares, the shopping centers and several other places on post. Why do we need protection if the authorities are so sure Hasan was acting alone?

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

:rolleyes: Like the "selective observation" that the Ft Hood shooter went to the same mosque as the 9/11 hijackers? That's what floors me about some folks. Everybody is a conspiracy theorist! Some people are just too stubborn to admit it! For example long after the Bush administration denied this 70% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Now maybe you weren't part of that 70%. But were you actively out trying to dispel that myth? Or were you propagating the circumstantial evidence that pointed to the possibility that it might be true? Either we look at everything or we look at nothing.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Given the track record of the U.S. government, it would seem wise to question every story that they concoct.

[jmdrake]

Not a regular poster here, but I still check up on things from time to time. I can't take this article too seriously seeing as I live on Fort Hood about a mile from where the attack happened and most of the assumptions I've seen on various conspiracy theorists sites are just outright false.

So the shooter didn't graduate from Virginia Tech even though that's all over the MSM? :rolleyes:



For one, if the cell phone towers were jammed, why was I able to sporadically speak with my husband during the lockdown via cell phone? Two, there were over 170 witnesses in the SRP building. I'd think between them, somebody was able to get a good look at the shooter and positively identify him. I don't think Hasan is some sort of scapegoat here. A few local Muslims who knew Hasan personally have stated that he was misguided and misinterpreted the Koran and that there was something wrong with him.


Strawmen arguments. Neither link that I posted (one from MSM and the other from a "conspiracy theory site") said anything about cell phone service or claimed it was someone other than Hasan or claimed that Hasan wasn't muslim. Again I direct you, like I've directed others, to the 1993 WTC bombing where the FBI was forced to admit that they used a muslim informant to actually build the bomb!

YouTube - Rare TV NEWS report about WTC bombing FBI Foreknowledge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs)



The only thing I do find alarming and unresolved is the report of multiple shooters at various sites on post. I want to know why the local news reported that there was a shooter at the PX and why a woman in my neighborhood was tackled at the PX by another well-meaning customer trying to protect her. She spent the night in the hospital. Also, we now have soldiers with their weapons guarding the schools, youth centers, day cares, the shopping centers and several other places on post. Why do we need protection if the authorities are so sure Hasan was acting alone?

I heard that the other "shooters" were attempting to shoot Hasan but were stopped by the police. I have no confirmation of that.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[constituent]

I heard that the other "shooters" were attempting to shoot Hasan but were stopped by the police. I have no confirmation of that.


This sounds perfectly logical. If there is a silver-lining in all this it is that the two "good samaritans" weren't locked-up overnight for their initiative.

[GTMomma]

So the shooter didn't graduate from Virginia Tech even though that's all over the MSM? :rolleyes:

Strawmen arguments. Neither link that I posted (one from MSM and the other from a "conspiracy theory site") said anything about cell phone service or claimed it was someone other than Hasan or claimed that Hasan wasn't muslim. Again I direct you, like I've directed others, to the 1993 WTC bombing where the FBI was forced to admit that they used a muslim informant to actually build the bomb!

My bad. I was responding specifically to the Lew Rockwell article. I didn't read the first two you posted. :o

[GTMomma]

Neither link that I posted (one from MSM and the other from a "conspiracy theory site") said anything about cell phone service or claimed it was someone other than Hasan or claimed that Hasan wasn't muslim.

While your links may not have stated the above, there are people on the Alex Jones site and other places proposing that the shooting did not take place at the SRP center and that Hasan was actually just responding to the "real shooters" and is being used as a scapegoat for the young white G.Is really responsible. I was addressing the general BS I've been reading.

[GunnyFreedom]

:rolleyes: Like the "selective observation" that the Ft Hood shooter went to the same mosque as the 9/11 hijackers? That's what floors me about some folks. Everybody is a conspiracy theorist! Some people are just too stubborn to admit it! For example long after the Bush administration denied this 70% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Now maybe you weren't part of that 70%. But were you actively out trying to dispel that myth? Or were you propagating the circumstantial evidence that pointed to the possibility that it might be true? Either we look at everything or we look at nothing.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Hasan wasn't singing the Virginia Tech fight song while squeezing off rounds, he was shouting "Allahu Akbar"

Hasan wasn't pulling motivation from websites detailing the performance of VT's sports teams, his browsing history focused on radical jihad websites.

:rolleyes:

You can't take a single piece of evidence in isolation either, you have to examine the broader pattern.

Why is this stuff not obvious to thinking people?

[pcosmar]

Why is this stuff not obvious to thinking people?

Well that is one conspiracy theory. But I am finding reports to the contrary.
Just one, there are many others,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/us/08investigate.html


Still, investigators have found no evidence that Major Hasan sent e-mail messages to known terrorists or anyone else who encouraged or helped him to orchestrate the shootings.

Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat who is head of the House Homeland Security intelligence subcommittee, confirmed in a phone interview on Saturday that investigators had thus far not found any evidence suggesting that Major Hasan had been in contact with extremist or terrorist organizations. “I don’t know of that link,” Ms. Harman said, adding that the investigation was seeking to answer that question. The committee oversees some of the agencies involved in domestic counterterrorism inquiries.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Basing ones conclusions on the " facts " that the media and government spoon feed the public is a danger to liberty.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well that is one conspiracy theory. But I am finding reports to the contrary.
Just one, there are many others,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/us/08investigate.html

How does this differ from what I have been saying all along? I said from the first moment that this character acted alone. That he had jihadism as a motivating factor. I have never EVER claimed there was any evidence that he acted as a member of a group or at the urging of some group.

This is the third or fourth time you have tried to 'install' this theory into me by insinuation, and you wonder why I have stopped taking you seriously?

Like I said when you complained over me calling you a 'truther' I said "well, you reap what you sow." Maybe, just maybe if you had not tried to paint me as holding these positions which I have never held or advocated, then I would not have tried to show you what it felt like.

But I understand, really I do. Trying to paint me with a strawman is the easiest way to make people THINK you have addressed and defeated my argument without actually having to address my argument at all.

I seriously thought most Paulers were above this crap.

[paulitics]

Basing ones conclusions on the " facts " that the media and government spoon feed the public is a danger to liberty.

Bingo. That is why the accused must ALWAYS face a fair trial in a court of law. Many assumptions are being made on both sides.

[pcosmar]

Bingo. That is why the accused must ALWAYS face a fair trial in a court of law.
Yup, that is true. But I do not expect it.
He will most likely be tried in Court Marshal. And evidence may well not be made public.

that said, even in our courts system I have known innocent men to be convicted.

I have made NO CONCLUSIONS, as to his guilt or innocence nor to his motivations or lack there of.
I have questions, some have not been answered. And at he same time Circumstantial links are used to declare his Known motivations and guilt.

There are some very possible "Theories", and some grasping at straws.
I am still asking questions.

[dannno]

Any observation that contradicts that conspiracy must be emphatically rejected and denied.


Um, no, you have it completely backwards. Can you point out ONE person here who is DENYING that these two other shooters were in fact trying to take out the gunman??

No, you can't, so your statement is logically inconsistent.

Second... it is the ESTABLISHMENT and the MEDIA who emphatically rejects and denies hard evidence when their official version of events is wrong..

I'm sorry, but when the establishment produces a DNA report, I am not REQUIRED to believe it. When the establishment takes over the investigation and produces evidence that was not observed before said establishment took over the crime scene, I am NOT required to believe it. And neither should you. I'm not talking about the Ft. Hood shooting here, either. My point is that conspiracy theorists do not deny and reject hard evidence, though we occasionally reject evidence that is compiled and possibly created or manipulated by the establishment.

[GunnyFreedom]

I have made NO CONCLUSIONS,

Except for the CONCLUSION that anybody who looks at Hasan's history, actions, words, preferences, lifestyle, and social relations, and postulates that there may have been a personal jihadist motivation for his psychotic break and rampage, has REALLY come to the firm conclusion that he was in the pay of Al Qaieda and ate lunch with Osama Bin Laden.

Nevermind what they are actually SAYING, since what they are saying is actually rational and logical, it is more important to invent all kinds of crazy things wich you think they probably believe, and try to make people accept the lunatic irrational strawmen you paint them with rather than the rational analysis that they are actually producing.

How in the hell has a significant segment of the RPF's become so friendly with the marginalization tactics of Fox News and the M$M anyway?

[GunnyFreedom]

Um, no, you have it completely backwards. Can you point out ONE person here who is DENYING that these two other shooters were in fact trying to take out the gunman??

No, you can't, so your statement is logically inconsistent.

Second... it is the ESTABLISHMENT and the MEDIA who emphatically rejects and denies hard evidence when their official version of events is wrong..

I'm sorry, but when the establishment produces a DNA report, I am not REQUIRED to believe it. When the establishment takes over the investigation and produces evidence that was not observed before said establishment took over the crime scene, I am NOT required to believe it. And neither should you. I'm not talking about the Ft. Hood shooting here, either. My point is that conspiracy theorists do not deny and reject hard evidence, though we occasionally reject evidence that is compiled and possibly created or manipulated by the establishment.

WTF are you talking about???? What two other shooters? More strawmen?

Maybe I should start calling you "Frank Luntz"

[jmdrake]

WTF are you talking about???? What two other shooters? More strawmen?

Maybe I should start calling you "Frank Luntz"

Uhh....have you been following this case other than obsessing over the Muslim link and trying to figure ways around the constitution? The initial reports talked about two additional shooters. Now that's been dropped from the initial report just like "John Doe number 2" was (finally) dropped from discussion of the Oklahoma City bombing. It is a very relevant question as to why those two suspects were dropped. I've heard through the grapevine (forum post somewhere) that they were actually trying to shoot Hassan. But it's more than a bit troubling that I've not seen this officially anyway.

[jmdrake]

Hasan wasn't singing the Virginia Tech fight song while squeezing off rounds, he was shouting "Allahu Akbar"

Hasan wasn't pulling motivation from websites detailing the performance of VT's sports teams, his browsing history focused on radical jihad websites.

:rolleyes:

You can't take a single piece of evidence in isolation either, you have to examine the broader pattern.

Why is this stuff not obvious to thinking people?

Because "thinking people" have heard of MKUltra, know of it's connection to Virginia Tech and are able to connect possible dots. You have radical Islam tunnel vision.

[jmdrake]

While your links may not have stated the above, there are people on the Alex Jones site and other places proposing that the shooting did not take place at the SRP center and that Hasan was actually just responding to the "real shooters" and is being used as a scapegoat for the young white G.Is really responsible. I was addressing the general BS I've been reading.

Ah. I see. That's the problem with alternative theories. You point out one and it makes people think of others you didn't address and may or may not believe. ;)

I did find an article the article at lewrockwell.com you mentioned that talked about the possibility of cell phone jamming.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy72.1.html

I also found another article at LRC that took a more conventional "blowback" approach.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/longcore10.1.htm

I think it's good of LRC to look at all angles and not have the "tunnel vision" some seem to suffer from. The worst thing we can do is to take the left wing "let's ban all guns" approach or the right wing neocon "let's profile all muslims and give the FBI broad new powers to snoop on people who visit websites the government doesn't like" approach.

[pcosmar]

Except for the CONCLUSION that anybody who looks at Hasan's history, actions, words, preferences, lifestyle, and social relations, and postulates that there may have been a personal jihadist motivation for his psychotic break and rampage,


I have not discounted that as a possible motivation, nor have I written pages of text trying to convince others that this was his main and only motivation.
I question holes in the story, I am waiting for answers,and not jumping to ANY conclusion.

He had direct threats and enemies.
There is a question involving the Gun used.
There are questions about those that were arrested initially, and their possible involvement.
If information was available about him being a risk, Why was he promoted and being sent to a combat zone?

There are many questions.
I am asking questions.
You are trying, through much posting and many words to convince, that this was a religious based attack to the exclusion of any other possible motivation.

That alone makes me question your motivations.
You did say that you worked in "intelligence".

[dannno]

WTF are you talking about???? What two other shooters? More strawmen?

Maybe I should start calling you "Frank Luntz"

Hey man, sorry for flashing back so far in the thread, but you don't have to start throwing insults!! :p


You were responding to the following quote:


Word is that the two other "suspects" were GIs who had weapons in their vehicles (contrary to policy) and were in the process of getting their weapons in order to take out the shooter, when the police force arrived, and detained them. A case of good guys not being able to recognize other good guys, which is the main danger an armed citizen faces when the police do show up on the scene.



This is the quote you were discussing. Then you went off on people on this forum who may have alluded to the other individuals initially reported as government ops... but what you don't seem to realize is that just because these people alluded to this doesn't mean that the entire government involvement scenario hinges on this fact!! Therefore it is irrelevant if these other guys turn out to be completely innocent, because there is so much circumstantial evidence tying this Hasan guy to an MK Ultra type operation as well as the planting a bunch of ridiculous evidence on the internet and elsewhere in order to frame him as a Muslim extremist.

The worst part was that you alluded to these individuals "denying" these facts when that was clearly not happening at all... and that is why I said that it was in fact the opposite, because it is the establishment that ignores the facts we bring up regarding the official version of events that they deny.. We only deny evidence that THEY have complete control over that THEY say proves THEM right. Nothing wrong with that.

[GunnyFreedom]

Because "thinking people" have heard of MKUltra, know of it's connection to Virginia Tech and are able to connect possible dots. You have radical Islam tunnel vision.

(emphasis mine)

You've never read any of my posts in the two years I have been involved o this board, have you?

[GunnyFreedom]

Uhh....have you been following this case other than obsessing over the Muslim link and trying to figure ways around the constitution? The initial reports talked about two additional shooters. Now that's been dropped from the initial report just like "John Doe number 2" was (finally) dropped from discussion of the Oklahoma City bombing. It is a very relevant question as to why those two suspects were dropped. I've heard through the grapevine (forum post somewhere) that they were actually trying to shoot Hassan. But it's more than a bit troubling that I've not seen this officially anyway.

My initial response when we thought that there were three shooters was that this was a very ugly potential situation, but that we had no data to form ANY speculation on where this was coming from yet. My personal thoughts (which I kept to myself as they were COMPLETELY unsupported) at the time was that there may have been a mutiny behind the 'hushing up' of events in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Then when it turned out that the other two were not suspected aggressors, but I was still curious as to why they were picked up. Then the probable explanation of ordinary soldiers retrieving weapons to stop Hasan fit all the available known facts at the time and I agreed that this made sense.

Mind you, I am sure from your perspective it is easier to dismiss my line of reasoning if you assume I am obsessing on a Muslim link. The fact of the matter is, I am simply going where the evidence leads. If that offends you, then I make no apologies for following proper procedure, and suggest instead that you look into the mirror to discover why you seem to have these glaring blind spots.

[jmdrake]

(emphasis mine)

You've never read any of my posts in the two years I have been involved o this board, have you?

I've read your posts in regards to this shooting. And in this regards you have radical Islam tunnel vision. Worse you've proposed an unconstitutional expansion of government power to deal with the "problem". (Giving the FBI broad powers to spy on people who visit websites the government deems objectionable as long as those websites are on foreign ISPs). I'm sure you mean well. I'm sure you've had a lot of good things to say in the past. But I'm not going to give you a "pass" just because of your "past". Again, look up MKUltra and Virginia tech and get back with us.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[GunnyFreedom]

Hey man, sorry for flashing back so far in the thread, but you don't have to start throwing insults!! :p

Sorry, I was getting all hot and bothered from having a false viewpoint thrust upon me against my will, and in my hurry I thought I was responding to someone else. In fact, you do not have nearly as much of a tendency to paint me with strawmen as the person I thought I was responding to at the time.


You were responding to the following quote:





This is the quote you were discussing. Then you went off on people on this forum who may have alluded to the other individuals initially reported as government ops... but what you don't seem to realize is that just because these people alluded to this doesn't mean that the entire government involvement scenario hinges on this fact!! Therefore it is irrelevant if these other guys turn out to be completely innocent, because there is so much circumstantial evidence tying this Hasan guy to an MK Ultra type operation as well as the planting a bunch of ridiculous evidence on the internet and elsewhere in order to frame him as a Muslim extremist.

The worst part was that you alluded to these individuals "denying" these facts when that was clearly not happening at all... and that is why I said that it was in fact the opposite, because it is the establishment that ignores the facts we bring up regarding the official version of events that they deny.. We only deny evidence that THEY have complete control over that THEY say proves THEM right. Nothing wrong with that.

I still say there is a HUGE blind spot amongst several RPF'ers being hilighted here behind this tragedy and in the two threads.

I don't LIKE the idea that this thing was motivated by a jihadist philosophy, that's just where the evidence is pointing so far.

I have been 'painted' over and again in these two threads with claiming many things that I have never claimed.

I have been painted as though I were claiming there was solid direct evidence connecting Hasan to some terrorist group. FALSE.

I have been painted as some kind of Islamaphobe who sees jihadists behind every curtain and under every bed. FALSE.

I have been painted as someone who leaps to conclusions without cause or evidence. FALSE.

I think you got hit with crossfire in the referenced post, and I apologize for that. You were not the one acting like Frank Luntz.

[GunnyFreedom]

I've read your posts in regards to this shooting. And in this regards you have radical Islam tunnel vision. Worse you've proposed an unconstitutional expansion of government power to deal with the "problem". (Giving the FBI broad powers to spy on people who visit websites the government deems objectionable as long as those websites are on foreign ISPs). I'm sure you mean well. I'm sure you've had a lot of good things to say in the past. But I'm not going to give you a "pass" just because of your "past". Again, look up MKUltra and Virginia tech and get back with us.

Regards,

John M. Drake

WHY do you people keep painting me with crap I do NOT espouse??!!??

I was talking about ROLLING BACK FBI powers to pre-PATRIOT levels, and the post you are referencing made that ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

WTF is WRONG with you?

If what Fox and the M$M did to Ron Paul was really so fkn horrible, WHY ARE YOU DOING THE SAME DAMN THING when it comes to what YOU feel passionate about?

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

I think that a big reason for the confusion in this thread is due to the following reasons --- that a lot of people here don't trust the government and or the media to give the real story.

And at the same time --- a natural tendency for most people to hear the news and believe it to be factual.

IMO, it would be best to know that whatever you hear in the MSM : could be true, could be false, could be partially true or partially false.

It doesn't mean it is true just because everyone is spouting off about it throughout the media.

There is information, misinformation, disinformation all being thrown around and often mixed up together.

Things are easily convoluted in this kind of situation, but it is what we have to deal with.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

And to top that all off, many people would even go as far to say that the media is just a tool for " tptb " to manipulate public favor, opinion, and more.

If we look at the recent broadcasts in world news media of the British mothers and families berating Gordon Brown for not supplying enough military equipment to the soldiers and also sobbing and pleading for him to do just that...to make sure that there are plenty of helicopters, guns, armors, and of course, more soldiers sent into those countries...

doesn't it strike anyone else as a little odd and a little too convenient for the apparent agenda ?

That these pleas and reports get such dramatic coverage, but parents and family saying that those men and women should not be there at all to begin with don't hardly get seen or heard in the MSM.

[dannno]

Ya ^^

[jmdrake]

WHY do you people keep painting me with crap I do NOT espouse??!!??

I was talking about ROLLING BACK FBI powers to pre-PATRIOT levels, and the post you are referencing made that ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

WTF is WRONG with you?

If what Fox and the M$M did to Ron Paul was really so fkn horrible, WHY ARE YOU DOING THE SAME DAMN THING when it comes to what YOU feel passionate about?

BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRE-PATRIOT ACT LAW WAS! That is what is abundantly clear! Prior to 9/11 if the NSA picked up a wiretap that started in the U.S. and ended outside the U.S. they were required by law to stop listening unless they had a warrant! What you have in effect proposed is a "website wiretap". You are misapplying the law, and you're getting mad at me for pointing that out! That's not my problem. That's yours.

I don't want the government to have the power to start total surveillance of someone just because they happen to make multiple visits to a website that the government doesn't approve. I'm especially concerned with this considering the context that we have an administration that has already cast Patriots as terrorists and the past two administrations did the same thing!

Do us all a favor. Quit assuming you know everything. Quit assuming your "right" and accept at least the possibility that you are wrong. Analyze your proposal, not from the perspective of someone who is part of the Patriot community and doesn't fear it, but from the perspective of an outsider who sees the word "patriot" or "militia" and automatically thinks of Timothy McVeigh.

If it's possible for you to put yourself in that frame of mind, think of the following posts that I've seen here or on other patriot and/or conservative websites:

1) The military may stage a coup to end the "Obama problem"
2) Image of 1776 revolutionaries tarring and feathering a "tory" with a picture of a noose in the background along with "this is how we should handle traitorous politicians"
3) Advice on how to build your own machine gun
4) David Koresh was a hero for standing up to the government
5) The ovens should be used on those who believe in religion. (I saw that posted here on the main board during the 2008 election)
6) Post your picture of your favorite gun
7) How do you reload ammo?
8) Praise the Lord! Troops are being killed because God is angry over gay rights in America!
9) We should seriously consider secession
10) Is it time for violent revolution?

The mods here shuffle some, but not all, of posts like this to HT. But is that enough? Would a jihadi site get off of your watchlist if it had a "hot topics" section? And I'm not just concerned about people who read this website. I'm also concerned about people who read stormfart and davidpuke. Do those sites moderate out anything? I might not like those websites or the people who post on or read them (actually I could care less what someone reads) but I don't want the government to have a free hand to single someone out just that person reads controversial material that is still legal!

Let's take the scenario that everybody agrees is the "most likely" with respect to the two other shooters. Considering they were headed to the shooter with their weapons despite being in a "victim disarmament zone". (Why no guns allowed on a military base is beyond me. If you can't trust soldiers with weapons who can you trust?) Their actions show that they might be Patriots. Say if the feds followed your advice? Say if these two had become regular readers of the British version of stormfart? Maybe they were Catholic and read IRA websites? They go out to a strip bar the night before and now the FBI has ample reason to assume their terrorists. Far fetched? Not really. You're willing to base your profile of muslim terrorists on two data points. (9/11 and the Ft Hood shooter both went to strip clubs so that must be a red flag.) Well when it comes to white right wing terrorists there are (at least) two data points. You have the OKC bombing and the recent Holocaust museum shootings. All someone has to do is find some trivial commonality like they both didn't like the government or they both were concerned about Waco and viola! You have a profile. That's basically the position that was taken by the left (and by Glen Beck come to think of it) in the wake of the Holocaust museum shooting. It's funny that you accuse me of acting like Fox news when you are the one pushing the same "profiling is good" argument.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Liberty Star]

I don't LIKE the idea that this thing was motivated by a jihadist philosophy, that's just where the evidence is pointing so far.




Do you think this guy had same motivations as that of 9/11 hijackers?

Just curious what do you think was 9/11 hijackers' primary motivation?

Based on "same mosque" connection or whatever information is available to us to date (some of them devout people apparently frequented nude clubs too but that's a whole different discussion).

[GunnyFreedom]

BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRE-PATRIOT ACT LAW WAS! That is what is abundantly clear! Prior to 9/11 if the NSA picked up a wiretap that started in the U.S. and ended outside the U.S. they were required by law to stop listening unless they had a warrant! What you have in effect proposed is a "website wiretap". You are misapplying the law, and you're getting mad at me for pointing that out! That's not my problem. That's yours.

No, I am getting mad about you and cohorts making up all kinds of bullshit strawmen and trying to stick me with them like you are some kind of 2008 M$M smear-doctors hoping that the lie gets bought so that people don't hear the truth.

Clearly you are not applying yourself to understanding what I am writing.

The stage in the process which you are pointing to places packet sniffers on FOREIGN ISP's and reports heavy traffic across the spectrum from singular IP addresses in the US.

"We have 90 hits across 10 disparate radicalist sites in Oman, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia in the last 5 days from the same IP, let's dig up a profile and try to get a FISA warrant and see if we can rule this guy out from being a violent radical."

In Hasan's case, that profile would have turned up his studying under the radical Imam in Virginia, and his public statement that infidels should have their heads cut off.

If the profile of the individual at that address does not meet the threshold for the potential commission of crimes, then FISA warrant is not granted, and nothing happens. If the profile DOES meet the threshold per judicial oversight, then the FISA warrant is granted and the CIA begins electronic and covert surveillance with the express intention of attempting to rule them OUT.

If they are unable to rule him out, then it goes to the FBI who try to rule him IN, before considering possible intervention.


I don't want the government to have the power to start total surveillance of someone just because they happen to make multiple visits to a website that the government doesn't approve. I'm especially concerned with this considering the context that we have an administration that has already cast Patriots as terrorists and the past two administrations did the same thing!

Geemuny Cricket! Sean Hannity much?

Everything I have said in these two threads directly contradicts the characterization of my position you make above.

If your point is so solid and bulletproof, then why do you have to constantly lie about my position in order to make your counter argument look legitimate?

I would think that if your points were actually valid, then they could be made without actually lying about my position, no?


Do us all a favor. Quit assuming you know everything. Quit assuming your "right" and accept at least the possibility that you are wrong. Analyze your proposal, not from the perspective of someone who is part of the Patriot community and doesn't fear it, but from the perspective of an outsider who sees the word "patriot" or "militia" and automatically thinks of Timothy McVeigh.

WOW! Try looking in a mirror, fella. :rolleyes:


If it's possible for you to put yourself in that frame of mind, think of the following posts that I've seen here or on other patriot and/or conservative websites:

1) The military may stage a coup to end the "Obama problem"
2) Image of 1776 revolutionaries tarring and feathering a "tory" with a picture of a noose in the background along with "this is how we should handle traitorous politicians"
3) Advice on how to build your own machine gun
4) David Koresh was a hero for standing up to the government
5) The ovens should be used on those who believe in religion. (I saw that posted here on the main board during the 2008 election)
6) Post your picture of your favorite gun
7) How do you reload ammo?
8) Praise the Lord! Troops are being killed because God is angry over gay rights in America!
9) We should seriously consider secession
10) Is it time for violent revolution?

If someone has heavy traffic on a site that advocates violence, goes to a preacher (of whatever religion) who specifically teaches them how to accomplish this violence without 'offending' their God, is publicly outspoken about the need to kill (whichever group) and then goes out to acquire the supplies and materials needed to affect said violence, then yes, I want them watched. If they then go to (set up a bomb, build a sniper's nest across from the President's speech, barricade himself outside of an abortion clinic with a clear field of fire) then yes, I want the FBI to intervene.

As to what to charge them with? I am not certain that the willingness to commit a crime is actually a crime. Stopping the crime before it happens should not result in prison, as far as I can see.

So what then? Put an FBI sniper in position and wait to take the guy out once he puts his eye in the scope and starts pointing in the general direction of the abortion doctor? Maybe. I don't know. I don't really have an answer at that point.

But if we have a process to stop these attacks before they happen I would much rather try THAT than wait until after they happen and letting the government use the event to trample the Constitution.


The mods here shuffle some, but not all, of posts like this to HT. But is that enough? Would a jihadi site get off of your watchlist if it had a "hot topics" section? And I'm not just concerned about people who read this website. I'm also concerned about people who read stormfart and davidpuke. Do those sites moderate out anything? I might not like those websites or the people who post on or read them (actually I could care less what someone reads) but I don't want the government to have a free hand to single someone out just that person reads controversial material that is still legal!

ONCE AGAIN (I think this is the...what...fourth? fifth? time?) You are taking events in isolation, and you cannot do that. Simply trafficking a given website or set of websites is irrelevant, and would never make it past the first FISA court warrant process.

The FISA judge would ask, "Where is the evidence of a potential crime? Has the person met with any criminal facilitators? Has the person been making public statements of an intent to commit violent acts? No? FISA warrnt denied!"

Each and every one of your examples thus far would never even make it past the first of the three tiers, and each tier in succession would be a LARGER hurdle to overcome.

So how many time do I have to say "just looking at given websites would never make it past the FISA Warrant"

Is there a certain number of times? It's been at least four times so far, so how many times do you require it to be said before you drop that strawman canard?


Let's take the scenario that everybody agrees is the "most likely" with respect to the two other shooters. Considering they were headed to the shooter with their weapons despite being in a "victim disarmament zone". (Why no guns allowed on a military base is beyond me. If you can't trust soldiers with weapons who can you trust?) Their actions show that they might be Patriots. Say if the feds followed your advice? Say if these two had become regular readers of the British version of stormfart? Maybe they were Catholic and read IRA websites? They go out to a strip bar the night before and now the FBI has ample reason to assume their terrorists. Far fetched? Not really. You're willing to base your profile of muslim terrorists on two data points. (9/11 and the Ft Hood shooter both went to strip clubs so that must be a red flag.)

Actually, I composed the pattern with no less than eight disparate datapoints, but by all means, do please continue. If misrepresenting my position helps you to make your argument, then the last thing we want is to actually tell the truth, right Frank Luntz? :rolleyes:

After all, since it's your position, and you are guaranteed to be correct (since it is, after all YOU) then lying about my position is quite alright, in fact, lying about my position in this case is completely justified since I have the audacity to disagree with YOU then I am obviously guaranteed to be wrong. Right? (See my above comment "try looking in a mirror, fella!")


Well when it comes to white right wing terrorists there are (at least) two data points. You have the OKC bombing and the recent Holocaust museum shootings. All someone has to do is find some trivial commonality like they both didn't like the government or they both were concerned about Waco and viola! You have a profile. That's basically the position that was taken by the left (and by Glen Beck come to think of it) in the wake of the Holocaust museum shooting. It's funny that you accuse me of acting like Fox news when you are the one pushing the same "profiling is good" argument.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I would suggest that before you attempt to cite examples as to how patriotic Americans might get snared in the process I described, that you actually familiarize yourself with the process I described.

Although, I am coming to think that maybe you do understand it, and are intentionally lying about my position, in order to justify your vitriol throughout these threads.

[jmdrake]

:rolleyes: Gunny, you are hopeless and clueless. I will only respond to one point you made because I'm getting tired of arguing with a brick wall who is too thick to understand how his proposal can be misused and abused. You ask if I watched Sean Hannity much. Not that much. BUT I HAVE HEARD PROPOSALS SUCH AS THE ONE YOU ARE GIVING HERE BEING DISHED OUT ON NEOCON SHOWS SUCH AS HIS! Really. Here's an experiment. Call in to ANY neocon show and give your proposal and see what they think of it. Then, when you get the chance, ask Ron Paul what he thinks. I'd bet you your entire entire campaign war chest that Ron Paul would be very concerned with your proposal AND THE NEOCONS WOULD LOVE IT!

One more thing. Are you aware of the no fly list? Are you aware of the fact that when it was proposed most people thought it would be used only against those "eviil muslims"? Are you aware of how Barack Obama is planning to use it? Please watch the following video and then explain to me how you can say something STUPID like:

[i]I would suggest that before you attempt to cite examples as to how patriotic Americans might get snared in the process I described, that you actually familiarize yourself with the process I described.

Although, I am coming to think that maybe you do understand it, and are intentionally lying about my position, in order to justify your vitriol throughout these threads.[i]


YouTube - Rahm Emanuel, if you are on No Fly List, No Gun! Alex Jones Film, The Obama Deception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4)

I'm not going to falsely accuse you of lying like you did. AND YOU ARE THE ONE WITH ALL OF THE VITRIOL! Once again I think you mean well. But I don't think you are very bright.

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you think this guy had same motivations as that of 9/11 hijackers?

I don't know. I am guessing that with regards to Hasan specifically, the philosophy of violent jihad was only one component amongst several that led to his psychotic break, but that's just speculation. It would seem that hazing, isolation, stress, and possibly SSRI drugs may all have has a part to play.

However, there was publicly available data that pointed to his being influenced by the philosophy of violent jihad, such as his (public) lecture during the medical conference where he said that people who do not believe in the Koran should have burning oil forced down their throats.


Just curious what do you think was 9/11 hijackers' primary motivation?

Not sure that we even yet have a complete picture, but I believe that making the Imperialist America suffer hurt would seem to be a primary factor.

Teaching us we are not invulnerable, trying to draw us into a conflict in Afghanistan where they could bankrupt us like they did the Soviet Union.

I am guessing that the motivation behind 9/11 is very complex, and cannot be answered in a very short space.


Based on "same mosque" connection or whatever information is available to us to date (some of them devout people apparently frequented nude clubs too but that's a whole different discussion).

Well, it's really more the same Imam than the same Mosque, to be honest. I am sure there may be several Imam's of varying philosophical mindset all in the same Mosque. If the preferred Imam of Hasan was also the preferred Imam of the 9/11 hijackers, then this is possible evidence is a shared philosophical view of the Jihad (ie, whether it is an internal, or an external struggle)

The datapoint that first screamed out to me was the fact that Hasan adopted the second pillar of Islam (which pillar includes the philosophy of the Jihad) specifically under this Imam who is known to advocate for violent, external Jihad.

The fact that he adopted the second pillar under his direct tutelage says a lot more to me than had Hasan ALREADY practiced the second pillar BEFORE he encountered this Imam, or if he had adopted the second pillar some time AFTER he was apart from this Imam.

[GunnyFreedom]

:rolleyes: Gunny, you are hopeless and clueless. I will only respond to one point you made because I'm getting tired of arguing with a brick wall who is too thick to understand how his proposal can be misused and abused.

Yup, there is the kind of cogent and rational argument I have come to expect from Sean Hannity. :rolleyes: LOL! It sounds an awful lot like how they smeared Ron Paul in 2008.


You ask if I watched Sean Hannity much. Not that much. BUT I HAVE HEARD PROPOSALS SUCH AS THE ONE YOU ARE GIVING HERE BEING DISHED OUT ON NEOCON SHOWS SUCH AS HIS!

YouTube it, or it didn't happen. :)


Really. Here's an experiment. Call in to ANY neocon show and give your proposal and see what they think of it. Then, when you get the chance, ask Ron Paul what he thinks. I'd bet you your entire entire campaign war chest that Ron Paul would be very concerned with your proposal AND THE NEOCONS WOULD LOVE IT!

If someone could come up with a plan which was able to protect America while preventing the destruction of the Constitution, then we should abandon it if the neocons decide to accept it also? :confused:

I should damn well hope that Ron Paul would be concerned about any application of government surveillance, and that (in your scenario) he would sit down with me and examine it line by line (without all the making crap up like you have been doing) and work together with me to help ensure that we can come up with a process which maintains the Constitutional protections for American citizens.

Just scoffing and calling me stupid clueless or brainwashed...and just making crap up that has no actual connection or bearing on the proposed plan, and pointing to the nonsense crap you make up like this is what is wrong with my idea is not rational discussion, it is an M$M and FauxNews like smear-job.


One more thing. Are you aware of the no fly list? Are you aware of the fact that when it was proposed most people thought it would be used only against those "eviil muslims"? Are you aware of how Barack Obama is planning to use it? Please watch the following video and then explain to me how you can say something STUPID like:

[i]I would suggest that before you attempt to cite examples as to how patriotic Americans might get snared in the process I described, that you actually familiarize yourself with the process I described.

Although, I am coming to think that maybe you do understand it, and are intentionally lying about my position, in order to justify your vitriol throughout these threads.[i]


Why in the world would such a process only be applied to Muslims? If the process I described actually works to prevent terroristic violence without destroying the COnstitutional protection of American citizens, wouldn't we want it to apply to ALL threats, and not just singling out Muslims?

ONCE AGAIN you are painting me with your own biases. You are ASSUMING that I am being some kind of freakish prejudiced anti-muslim ogre, EVEN THOUGH I have several times already applied this argument equally to Christian antiabortion zealots.

The deciding factor here as nothing to do with any specific religion or philosophy, but the will and intent to commit crimes and violence. Such a thing transcends philosophy and religion.

Indeed, there are a number of "green" terrorists also who should be equally subject to such a process.


YouTube - Rahm Emanuel, if you are on No Fly List, No Gun! Alex Jones Film, The Obama Deception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4)

I'm not going to falsely accuse you of lying like you did. AND YOU ARE THE ONE WITH ALL OF THE VITRIOL! Once again I think you mean well. But I don't think you are very bright.

LOL, yes, I'm the stupid one, which is apparently why you have to mischaracterize EVERYTHING I AM SAYING in order to 'refute' your strawmen. :rolleyes:

Perhaps I wouldn't be so angry if you were capable of actually addressing the points I have been making instead of just making crap up and pretending that the crap you are making up is what I believe or have been advocating.

What exactly does the unconstitutional 'no fly list' and the even more unconstitutional notion of banning the possession of firearms from those names who appear on the 'no fly list' have to do with anything I have been saying?

Well, nothing, really.

And that's my point. :)

[Liberty Star]

I don't know. I am guessing that with regards to Hasan specifically, the philosophy of violent jihad was only one component amongst several that led to his psychotic break, but that's just speculation. It would seem that hazing, isolation, stress, and possibly SSRI drugs may all have has a part to play.

However, there was publicly available data that pointed to his being influenced by the philosophy of violent jihad, such as his (public) lecture during the medical conference where he said that people who do not believe in the Koran should have burning oil forced down their throats.



Not sure that we even yet have a complete picture, but I believe that making the Imperialist America suffer hurt would seem to be a primary factor.

Teaching us we are not invulnerable, trying to draw us into a conflict in Afghanistan where they could bankrupt us like they did the Soviet Union.

I am guessing that the motivation behind 9/11 is very complex, and cannot be answered in a very short space.



Well, it's really more the same Imam than the same Mosque, to be honest. I am sure there may be several Imam's of varying philosophical mindset all in the same Mosque. If the preferred Imam of Hasan was also the preferred Imam of the 9/11 hijackers, then this is possible evidence is a shared philosophical view of the Jihad (ie, whether it is an internal, or an external struggle)

The datapoint that first screamed out to me was the fact that Hasan adopted the second pillar of Islam (which pillar includes the philosophy of the Jihad) specifically under this Imam who is known to advocate for violent, external Jihad.

The fact that he adopted the second pillar under his direct tutelage says a lot more to me than had Hasan ALREADY practiced the second pillar BEFORE he encountered this Imam, or if he had adopted the second pillar some time AFTER he was apart from this Imam.


This is important in understanding the "9/11 hijacker connection" debate, so I want to make sure I understand your view correctly. If I read your views above right, based on data/evidence you have seen:

- 9/11 hijackers were not primarily motivated by Religion

- Hasan's actions were primarily motivated by Religion

Did I understand your position right?

If so, "attending some mosque as 9/11 hijackers" connection becomes less meaningful right in understanding catalysts for his actions?


Religion is often used as a tool as people tend to find refuge in their Gods when going through emotional turmoils but very rarely religion itself is the primary catalyst of such actions.

[jmdrake]

I'm posting this in both threads because really we are talking in circles. The short answer is that you haven't really thought through the constitutional implications or how your policy can be misused by the Obama administration. I'm sure you mean well.

================================================== ==========
Gunny, let me say this. I love you. I really do. And as I've said from jumpstreet I really think you MEAN well! That said you don't understand how to reason by analogy, how to analyze unintended consequences or what the term "straw man" means. Rahm Emmanuel is not a "straw man". He is very real. And he took a program that some people may have thought was constitutional and found a way to apply that same program to patriots. I'm sure you think your proposal is constitutional. But it's not. The only way to make your "constitutional" argument is to make assumptions about the internet and how people use it that simply aren't true. Your constitutional claim is based on 18th century notions of how mail works. But the Internet is closer to telecommunications than it is snail mail. And every reasonable interpretation of the pre patriot act FISA law is that the NSA could NOT do wiretaps of communication that originated in the U.S. from an American citizen without a warrant. And I'm not even sure that your snail mail analogy even holds. Sure presidents have always been able to monitor foreign correspondence without a warrant but can you cite a single case where correspondence between an AMERICAN CITIZEN and a private citizen of another country was considered FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE? Note, I'm not talking about "I read this in a history book somewhere". I'm talking about an actual case.

You can't make something constitutional simply by asserting emphatically that it is and attacking, without warrant, someone who points out reasons why it might not be so.

You are simply choosing to ignore the unintended consequences by asserting that wasn't "your scenario". It doesn't matter what your scenario is. All that matters is how those who are in government now and may be in government in the future might use the precedent. I've studied enough of constitutional precedent to know that it can be applied in ways not originally intended. But this case is easy. It's simply not a big leap from some of the stuff posted on "patriot" or "conservative" websites and some stuff posted on "jihadist" websites. Sure jihadists express hatred for America in general as opposed to hatred of particular politicians. But it's still hatred. If you were a FISA judge and someone gave you information from a jihadist website that said "Pray to Allah for the death of the president" and "Praise Allah that U.S. soldiers are dying for that is his will" would you consider that justification for implementing your policy? Would it then be ok to spy on the mosque to see if you could find any connection to terrorism? If you didn't find a direct connection any particular mosque is that enough to end the policy? How remote does the link have to be? Say if the Imam of the website visitor was an associate of another Imam that had been linked to terrorism? Now take all of the answers to those questions, recast them to some right winger visiting a website that said those same things, only replacing "God" for "Allah" and you (should) see the problem.

There is an old saying in my community. Give some people an inch and they'll take a mile. (That's not the exact quote, but I can't say it in polite company). Whether you realize it or not your proposal itself gives a mile that the government simply did not have before the Patriot Act. It's not constitutional. And more importantly there are better ways to protect America that don't impose on civil liberties! Why you seem stuck on this one proposal is beyond me.

Finally consider this. You seem angry because you think I'm questioning your intent. I'm not. But can you give those who voted for the Patriot Act the same benefit of the doubt? Because if you can then you'll understand my concern. They were told repeatedly that the P.A. did not violate the constitution. They were told "it really doesn't change anything". I seem to recall Bush saying multiple times "this just gives the government the same tools to go after terrorism that it can already use to go after drug dealers". That was, of course, a lie. But a lot of good people were fooled by it. I think you are a good person that has been fooled by his own proposal. There's nothing wrong with that. We all make mistakes.
================================================== ==========

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Liberty Star]

Lil off topic, but this observation in OP news is quite amazing:


Immediately after the 2007 shootings, the school received a record number of applications; the burst of popularity was so intense that the school was unable to admit any of the more than 1,400 students on its wait list.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm posting this in both threads because really we are talking in circles. The short answer is that you haven't really thought through the constitutional implications or how your policy can be misused by the Obama administration. I'm sure you mean well.

That's right, when the strawmen stop working, just start repeating over and over and over and over that I am stupid and incapable of thought. I mean, it really is an effective strategy. After all, it worked so well against Ron Paul in 2008.


Gunny, let me say this. I love you. I really do. And as I've said from jumpstreet I really think you MEAN well! That said you don't understand how to reason by analogy,

Yeah, I guess that's why I was invited to join MENSA as a teenager, (we declined because my parents didn't want to pay the dues and my father saw no point in it) clearly it was because I'm so stupid and incapable of complex reasoning. I guess that's why I was specifically targeted and approached in boot camp by a Major and a full Colonel in Boot Camp and asked to join the Intelligence corps, because I so desperately lack in analytical ability. I guess that's why I graduated #2 in my class at Dam Neck Navy and Marine Intelligence Training Center, because I was so dense about understanding intelligence and the ramifications of the information process. I guess that's why I only got a 98 for the semester in Logic 201, because my cognitive abilities are SOOOOO substandard. :rolleyes:


how to analyze unintended consequences or what the term "straw man" means.

You are constantly applying to my position arguments which I do not make, in order to knock down your strawmen and pretend that you have defeated my arguments when you have, in fact failed to address my argument at all.


Rahm Emmanuel is not a "straw man". He is very real.

ROFLOL! Who is it exactly that has an impaired comprehension? lol!

I'm beginning to think maybe you aren't intentionally misrepresenting what I am writing, but that you are just honestly incapable of comprehending it. Maybe you really believe all the nonsense you are spouting about exactly what I am proposing.

You are trying to say now that I consider Rahm Emmanuel himself to be some kind of a straw man? lol! REALLY? IS that REALLY what you are saying now?

OK OK, let me go find an "official" definition of strawman for you so that you can't blame me for it...

Here is a good one: (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/strawman.htm)


In a strawman argument, "the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument." {Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies}

A strawman is "an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated." {American Heritage Dictionary, in TheFreeDictionary}

Wikipedia says: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘set up a straw man’ or ‘set up a straw-man argument’ is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

Yep, that's pretty much how I have been using the term, not just in these two threads, but for decades.


And he took a program that some people may have thought was constitutional and found a way to apply that same program to patriots. I'm sure you think your proposal is constitutional. But it's not. The only way to make your "constitutional" argument is to make assumptions about the internet and how people use it that simply aren't true. Your constitutional claim is based on 18th century notions of how mail works.

LOL really now? :) Did you get that from your handy-dandy crystal ball, or did you try reading some tea leaves?

Intelligence services, and especially Defense Intelligence Services (such as the DIA, NCIS, etc) are authorized in the the Constitution:


Article 1
Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Now, it would seem a lot easier to justify an intelligence agency under the specific auspices of the Army or the Navy (clauses 12 & 13) than the more ambiguous Art1 Sec8 clause 1 "...the common defence" with the CIA, so would it make more sense to you if it was the DIA who managed a packet sniffer in Oman rather than the CIA?


But the Internet is closer to telecommunications than it is snail mail.

And since networking is what I actually do for a living, then clearly I would have no understanding of any of this either. lol!


And every reasonable interpretation of the pre patriot act FISA law is that the NSA could NOT do wiretaps of communication that originated in the U.S. from an American citizen without a warrant.

Which is exactly why (what is this, the sixth time I had to say this?) my plan would prohibit wiretaps of communication that originated in the U.S. from an American citizen without a warrant.

Seriously. Do you have a specific number of times that I have to say something before you stop misrepresenting my position? Because if you do, I'll go ahead and say it that many times up front so we can get it behind us. :rolleyes: Ten times? A hundred? A thousand? Give me a number, and I will repeat it that many times. That way we don't have to spam the board with me saying the same thing over and over ad nauseum only to have you misrepresent me yet again.


And I'm not even sure that your snail mail analogy even holds.

ROFL!

my snail mail analogy.

1) weren't you only moments ago saying that I don't comprehend analogies? :)
2) whose snail mail analogy?

The only one talking about postal anything is you.

I would talk about a strawman here again, but you'd probably think I was referring to Rahm Emmanuel! ROFLMAO!


Sure presidents have always been able to monitor foreign correspondence without a warrant but can you cite a single case where correspondence between an AMERICAN CITIZEN and a private citizen of another country was considered FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE? Note, I'm not talking about "I read this in a history book somewhere". I'm talking about an actual case.

Ohh, I dunno, maybe Benedict Arnold? Mind you that was in the pre-constitutional era.


You can't make something constitutional simply by asserting emphatically that it is and attacking, without warrant, someone who points out reasons why it might not be so.

This statement might actually have some merit if you were actually addressing my argument instead of your own strawmen (Oops, I forgot, I'm supposed to be too stupid to know what that word means....)


Finally, you are simply choosing to ignore the unintended consequences by asserting that wasn't "your scenario". I doesn't matter what your scenario is.

What on earth are you on about now? Waco again? :confused:

Yeah, somehow I think it should be pretty clear that the plan I outlined did not create Waco, OR Timothy McVeigh, even if there were such an atemporal beast as a "pre-hoc ergo propter hoc"


All that matters is how those who are in government now and may be in government in the future might use the precedent. I've studied enough of constitutional precedent to know that it can be applied in ways not originally intended. But this case is easy. It's simply not a big leap from some of the stuff posted on "patriot" or "conservative" websites and some stuff posted on "jihadist" websites. Sure one jihadists express hatred for America in general as opposed to hatred of particular politicians. But it's still hatred. If you were a FISA judge and someone gave you information from a jihadist website that said "Pray to Allah for the death of the president" and "Praise Allah that U.S. soldiers are dying for that is his will" would you consider that justification for implementing your policy? Would it then be ok to spy on the mosque to see if you could find any connection to terrorism? If you didn't find a direct connection any particular mosque is that enough to end the policy? How remote does the link have to be? Say if the Imam of the website visitor was an associate of another Imam that had been linked to terrorism? Now take all of the answers to those questions, recast them to some right winger visiting a website that said those same things, only replacing "God" for "Allah" and you (should) see the problem.

There is an old saying in my community. Give some people an inch and they'll take a mile. (That's not the exact quote, but I can't say it in polite company). Whether you realize it or not your proposal itself gives a mile that the government simply did not have before the Patriot Act. It's not constitutional. And more importantly there are better ways to protect America that don't impose on civil liberties! Why you seem stuck on this one proposal is beyond me.

Finally consider this. You seem angry because you think I'm questioning your intent. I'm not. But can you give those who voted for the Patriot Act the same benefit of the doubt? Because if you can then you'll understand my concern. They were told repeatedly that the P.A. did not violate the constitution. They were told "it really doesn't change anything". I seem to recall Bush saying multiple times "this just gives the government the same tools to go after terrorism that it can already use to go after drug dealers". That was, of course, a lie. But a lot of good people were fooled by it. I think you are a good person that has been fooled by his own proposal. There's nothing wrong with that. We all make mistakes.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Y'know man, I give up. If all you got is strawmen, then there really is no need to continue this nonsense. I'm not angry because you are questioning my intent, you have made it abundantly clear that you think my heart is in the right place, but that I'm just stupid. That is, of course, terrifically ironic. :)

Of course, I don't really expect you to see the irony of it... :)

[GunnyFreedom]

This is important in understanding the "9/11 hijacker connection" debate, so I want to make sure I understand your view correctly. If I read your views above right, based on data/evidence you have seen:

- 9/11 hijackers were not primarily motivated by Religion

- Hasan's actions were primarily motivated by Religion

Did I understand your position right?

I don't think it's really that simple is what I'm saying. The philosophy of radical external violent Jihad would seem to clearly be a component in both cases. Both had other motives also which were different from each other.


If so, "attending some mosque as 9/11 hijackers" connection becomes less meaningful right in understanding catalysts for his actions?

Actually, quite the opposite.

If the only commonality in both cases of mass violence was a common source for the philosophy of radical external violent Jihad, and yet similar patterns emerge, then it would actually strengthen the case for that philosophy as being a defining influence.

And I am leaning more towards the specific influence of the Imam Anwar al-Awlaki than towards the overall teachings of the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque.

But if, in comparing the behavioral aspects of two sets, set 1 being the 9/11 hijackers and set 2 being Hasan, and finding several commonalities (giving possessions away, the last night of debauchery, the commission of mass violence) and then comparing the fundamental makeup of both sets and finding only one commonality (the Imam Anwar al-Awlaki) then it actually points to and strengthens the Imam Anwar al-Awlaki (and thus his specific doctrine of externalized violent Jihad) as being the common factor leading to violence.


Religion is often used as a tool as people tend to find refuge in their Gods when going through emotional turmoils but very rarely religion itself is the primary catalyst of such actions.

That may be, but 'very rarely' does not mean 'never,' and specifically with regards to the philosophy of violent Jihad, certain Imam's can be pointed to who seem to leave a disproportionate amount of violence in their wake.

It may be argued (correctly, IMHO) that these specific Imam's are really taking advantage of a lot of non-religious factors that give people a propensity to violence, and then they use religion as a means to 'push them over the edge' into the actual commission of acts that they would not ordinarily countenance.

In other words, say you have a disadvantaged youth who hates life. Perhaps he is in a Palestinian settlement and has genuine cause to be disgruntled, but would never imagine becoming a suicide bomber. Along comes this celebrated religious cleric who tells him "no son, you won't go to hell if you do this, you will go to paradise as a martyr!"

Eventually this Imam can wear down the walls of resistance that would ordinarily prevent the youth from carrying out the violence. Once his resistance is gone, then it becomes a lot easier to convince him to carry out a suicide bombing attack.

Now, one could argue that it was really the depraved situation of his settlement in Palestine that led to the suicide attack, but without that Imam pushing his philosophy of externalized Jihad specifically that it would make the youth a martyr instead of a condemned soul, he would probably never have crossed over the barriers preventing the action.

To put the shoe on the other foot, say there was a Christian whose brother was terminated in an abortion. For some reason he has built up this myth that his life would have been so much better if his brother had lived. He is depressed and borderline psychotic, but would never even think of committing murder, as he is convinced it would be morally wrong and he would go to hell.

Then he comes under the tutelage of a preacher who tells him everything he wants to hear. He is now accepted and the preacher becomes his long lost brother. The preacher starts teaching about how it is OK to kill others in order to defend the babies, that no, he won't go to hell, he will go to heaven and be right up there with David, Moses, John The Baptist, and Peter and Paul, and all the other huge heroes of the faith.

What the preacher is dong, is wearing down his resistance, disassembling brick by brick the barriers preventing him from carrying out his otherwise natural impulses. Until one day every last bit of resistance is gone, the the poor fellow goes out and shoots up an abortion clinic.

Well sure, you say, that allegedly 'Christian' preacher was just evil, and was using religion as a tool to lead this guy along by the nose and get him to do the violence that the preacher himself was too chicken to do.

Uh huh. But then couldn't the same thing be said about the Imam Anwar al-Awlaki?

[jmdrake]

Gunny. I'm going to bring up an entirely different point. I thought more about your policy of putting website visitors on a surveillance list and giving them an "escape clause" if there is evidence that they were visiting the website for "journalistic" or "patient help" reasons. Well what about someone writing a journal article about helping muslim patients conflicted about going to war against muslim enemies? From the plain language of your proposal that would give an automatic "escape clause" on two fronts.

Then I thought about Mr. Hasan. One of the key pieces of evidence being brought out against him is his grand rounds where he seemed "obsessed" with the subject of muslim soldiers having a conflict of conscience with regards to the "war on terror". And then it hit me. Most people do grand rounds in areas where they are writing papers. The fact that Hasan gave this grand round when he was asked to talk about something else raised the "there's a paper out there somewhere" red flag even higher. One quick Google search later I found this:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/337A62D5350D9A498625766B0011FF58?OpenDocument

That Defense Department investigator wrote an assessment of Hasan after reviewing the communications and the Army major's personnel file, according to these officials.

The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation — in large part because his communications with al-Awlaki were centered on a research paper about the effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the investigator determined that Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Your proposed "solution" would not even have helped in the very case that you are tailoring it to fit. Sure investigators might have been granted a warrant under your proposal that triggered surveillance based off website access, but as soon as they ran across this evidence the investigation under your proposal would have been "quarantined" (using your term) anyway and dropped.

There is a simple test for the constitutionality of any government restriction on civil liberty. The restriction has to be narrowly tailored to a sufficiently high government interest. Clearly preventing mass shootings is a high government interest. Arguing otherwise would not pass the blush test. But being put on total surveillance simply by making multiple visits to a website the government deems "terrorist" is a restriction of civil liberties. Again arguing otherwise wouldn't pass the blush test. That leaves the question of whether the policy is "narrowly tailored". I submit that a policy that wouldn't even prevent the incident it was proposed in response to is not "narrowly tailored". Plus it opens the door for total surveillance of a lot of innocent people who might not even be viewing "jihadi" websites but other websites this government considers "terrorist" until the government collects enough information to, as you put it, "opt them out".

Now before you go hyper and claim I'm calling you "stupid", let me point out that we both missed this! So if that makes you stupid it makes me stupid too for arguing with you when I could have pointed out much earlier that your proposal simply doesn't work. (At least it wouldn't have worked in Mr. Hasan's case).

If you'd quit being wed to this particular policy for a moment I'm sure you could come up with something much better that doesn't create an over broad dragnet and wouldn't let people like Mr. Hasan off the hook simply because he was writing a paper. Maybe something that relied more on human intelligence like the comments from his fellow physicians about how odd his grand rounds were.

Regards,

John M. Drake

P.S. Happy veteran's day and happy Marine Corps anniversary

[GunnyFreedom]

Just suffice it to say that you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about. I'm tired of correcting you 20 times and you are still mischaracterizing my remarks. I can see that if I correct you 1,000,000 times you will still mischaracterize what I am saying, so I give up. I have NO DESIRE to monitor/surveil visitors to ANY websites and I think I have made that about as clear as clear can get. Your continued insistence that I do, contrary to that I have said over a dozen times, reveals you for being dishonest at best.


Gunny. I'm going to bring up an entirely different point. I thought more about your policy of putting website visitors on a surveillance list and giving them an "escape clause" if there is evidence that they were visiting the website for "journalistic" or "patient help" reasons. Well what about someone writing a journal article about helping muslim patients conflicted about going to war against muslim enemies? From the plain language of your proposal that would give an automatic "escape clause" on two fronts.

Then I thought about Mr. Hasan. One of the key pieces of evidence being brought out against him is his grand rounds where he seemed "obsessed" with the subject of muslim soldiers having a conflict of conscience with regards to the "war on terror". And then it hit me. Most people do grand rounds in areas where they are writing papers. The fact that Hasan gave this grand round when he was asked to talk about something else raised the "there's a paper out there somewhere" red flag even higher. One quick Google search later I found this:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/337A62D5350D9A498625766B0011FF58?OpenDocument

That Defense Department investigator wrote an assessment of Hasan after reviewing the communications and the Army major's personnel file, according to these officials.

The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation — in large part because his communications with al-Awlaki were centered on a research paper about the effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the investigator determined that Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. Your proposed "solution" would not even have helped in the very case that you are tailoring it to fit. Sure investigators might have been granted a warrant under your proposal that triggered surveillance based off website access, but as soon as they ran across this evidence the investigation under your proposal would have been "quarantined" (using your term) anyway and dropped.

There is a simple test for the constitutionality of any government restriction on civil liberty. The restriction has to be narrowly tailored to a sufficiently high government interest. Clearly preventing mass shootings is a high government interest. Arguing otherwise would not pass the blush test. But being put on total surveillance simply by making multiple visits to a website the government deems "terrorist" is a restriction of civil liberties. Again arguing otherwise wouldn't pass the blush test. That leaves the question of whether the policy is "narrowly tailored". I submit that a policy that wouldn't even prevent the incident it was proposed in response to is not "narrowly tailored". Plus it opens the door for total surveillance of a lot of innocent people who might not even be viewing "jihadi" websites but other websites this government considers "terrorist" until the government collects enough information to, as you put it, "opt them out".

Now before you go hyper and claim I'm calling you "stupid", let me point out that we both missed this! So if that makes you stupid it makes me stupid too for arguing with you when I could have pointed out much earlier that your proposal simply doesn't work. (At least it wouldn't have worked in Mr. Hasan's case).

If you'd quit being wed to this particular policy for a moment I'm sure you could come up with something much better that doesn't create an over broad dragnet and wouldn't let people like Mr. Hasan off the hook simply because he was writing a paper. Maybe something that relied more on human intelligence like the comments from his fellow physicians about how odd his grand rounds were.

Regards,

John M. Drake

P.S. Happy veteran's day and happy Marine Corps anniversary

[Ignostic?]

The Fort Hood shooter graduated from Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech massacre was the worst shooting by an individual ever in the United States. The second worst was the Luby's massacre in Killeen, Texas. Fort Hood is also in Killeen. "Killeen" sounds an awful lot like "killing".

This is getting weird.