Overwritten.net
Community => Serious Topics => Topic started by: Pugnate on Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 01:44:55 PM
-
Here we go:
http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html
-
Added on July 22nd: "He allegedly wore a helmet, a throat guard, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings and gloves and was dressed in black." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/explosives-removed-from-james-...)
In other words, this guy was equipped with exotic gear by someone with connections to military equipment.
OR....hes a person with a credit card and internet access.
Oh wait, Natural News...that explains a lot.
-
Oh look a list of leaders who killed lots of people...
-
I have a lot of people on my Facebook who are part of the gaming industry. Just contacts through articles and stuff.. not actual friends... and you should see how many of these people are believing this article... 'something is just right about this!'
Crazy. You'd think more accomplished people would be smarter.
-
The fun thing is to try figure out what the goal of a conspiracy is. Why would the government fund such an operation to have some guy shoot up a theater and kill a handful of completely random people? Why has no one else noticed this guy going through all this supposed training? And assuming thats all true, what does the shooter get out of the whole ordeal? Life in jail? Yeah sounds great, sign me up....
So I guess the argument is the government wants to use this as a way to ban guns. Sure, couple problems with that.
A) This won't do it.
B) They didn't have to fund shit for a shooting to happen. One was going to happen eventually, so why waste the time, effort, money, and the risk of getting caught doing it?
-
Sometimes I think the world has gone extremely stupid. So many people believe this nonsense.
-
BUT IDOL, IT DOESN'T ADD UP. THINK ABOUT IT MAN.
-
(NaturalNews) One of the most shocking realization emerging from the James Holmes Batman movie shooting rampage in Aurora, Colorado is the fact that nobody apparently tried to stop the shooter. This is absolutely baffling. Out of at least 70 moviegoers (and maybe more, as numbers remain sketchy at the moment), it appears that nobody tried to tackle him to the ground, shoot back with their own gun, or even fight back in any way whatsoever.
Holy fuck, who the hell is this guy? Also, tear gas. And bullets.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036537_James_Holmes_Batman_shooting.html
-
I hope I don't sound insensitive, and I know this is a really touchy subject, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I always wondered how passive the victims of the 9/11 hijackings have been to have been take over by three guys with box cutters.
I realize that they probably threatened them with things they didn't have. I guess when you have more to lose you take less risks in such situations. I imagine I'd react differently than a someone on the poverty level in Pakistan in such a situation.
-
Cause nobody thought they'd actually crash the planes.
-
Yup, whats cools said. We always think a hijacked plane is going to eventually land. So cooperate, let them get to wherever the hell they want to go...hey, you might get a free stop in Cuba before they fly you home. No one expected them to use the planes as weapons and crash them into something.
-
I hope I don't sound insensitive, and I know this is a really touchy subject, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I always wondered how passive the victims of the 9/11 hijackings have been to have been take over by three guys with box cutters.
I realize that they probably threatened them with things they didn't have. I guess when you have more to lose you take less risks in such situations. I imagine I'd react differently than a someone on the poverty level in Pakistan in such a situation.
I'd completely agree with Cools there. If I was in a highjacking situation (and thinking logically), I'd assume that the best move would be to keep my head down, not cause any trouble, the plane would eventually land in Geneva or something and I'd get a crazy story out of it. Like, I'd still assume that - in a post September 11th terrorist attack world. The thought of some motherfuckers actually crashing the planes into buildings as they did would seem so alien at the time that I imagine most people just wanted to stay the course. Wasn't that the inspiration behind the actions of those aboard the plane that went down without hitting a target? They had somehow found out about the other planes first and sprung to action?
All in all, it's a really interesting question. I'm sure Game Theory comes into play here - if acting independently, you have a far higher chance of reaching the worst outcome (death) by taking action than you do if you do nothing. Crowd dynamics also probably come into play. The planes were probably full of (for the most part) independent agents, making it far less likely for someone willing to take that far higher chance of bodily harm for those around them (especially factoring in that most highjackings previously ended up with no one hurt). Very small alterations in the situation - like the presence of a professional sports team, military squadron, or even large destination wedding party on the plane could make all the difference in the world. If you were to care enough for those around you to take the hit for them and be confident that they cared enough about you in order to put themselves on the line to back you up, your thought process would probably be very different than if you're one individual in a crowd of strangers.
But the most interesting part of your post, as far as I'm concerned is the disclaimer at the start. Are Americans really that sensitive about the subject, or do we, the rest of the world, assume they are?
-
Yup, whats cools said. We always think a hijacked plane is going to eventually land. So cooperate, let them get to wherever the hell they want to go...hey, you might get a free stop in Cuba before they fly you home. No one expected them to use the planes as weapons and crash them into something.
Very very true.
-
I'd completely agree with Cools there. If I was in a highjacking situation (and thinking logically), I'd assume that the best move would be to keep my head down, not cause any trouble, the plane would eventually land in Geneva or something and I'd get a crazy story out of it. Like, I'd still assume that - in a post September 11th terrorist attack world. The thought of some motherfuckers actually crashing the planes into buildings as they did would seem so alien at the time that I imagine most people just wanted to stay the course. Wasn't that the inspiration behind the actions of those aboard the plane that went down without hitting a target? They had somehow found out about the other planes first and sprung to action?
All in all, it's a really interesting question. I'm sure Game Theory comes into play here - if acting independently, you have a far higher chance of reaching the worst outcome (death) by taking action than you do if you do nothing. Crowd dynamics also probably come into play. The planes were probably full of (for the most part) independent agents, making it far less likely for someone willing to take that far higher chance of bodily harm for those around them (especially factoring in that most highjackings previously ended up with no one hurt). Very small alterations in the situation - like the presence of a professional sports team, military squadron, or even large destination wedding party on the plane could make all the difference in the world. If you were to care enough for those around you to take the hit for them and be confident that they cared enough about you in order to put themselves on the line to back you up, your thought process would probably be very different than if you're one individual in a crowd of strangers.
But the most interesting part of your post, as far as I'm concerned is the disclaimer at the start. Are Americans really that sensitive about the subject, or do we, the rest of the world, assume they are?
Quite sensitive probably, especially considering my background.
Yes, I think it is about how much you care about the people around you I suppose. The point about not expecting the planes to be crashed is well taken.
-
I wrote a piece on how Muslims want this guy to be labeled a terrorist:
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/13005/batman-shooter-mentally-ill-not-a-terrorist/
-
Terrorism has subjective definition in today's wacky world.
-
I wrote a piece on how Muslims want this guy to be labeled a terrorist:
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/13005/batman-shooter-mentally-ill-not-a-terrorist/
Good article. I can't believe people make those ridiculous images and distribute them. I can't see any way in which race or ethnicity is at all related to what happened.
-
Peeps out there just have chips on their shoulders. Good article.
-
hahahahaha the comments are just insane. I love mocking people in the comments, though it is a little disturbing how nutty they are.
-
What I'm finding more disturbing is how well written some of the more nutty ones are.
-
What I'm finding more disturbing is how well written some of the more nutty ones are.
Yeah I agree. How do you find that disturbing? (curious)
-
Um, so I'm a bit behind the curve here, but I just heard about the Holmsies (John Holmes fangirls) and Comumbiners (yeah), and it kind of blew my mind. NEVER HAVING KIDS.