Crime Pulse nightclub shooting had nothing to do with gay people?!

That's true but the point is just because a given establishment that serves a certain clientele is targeted for a mass shooting doesn't mean the specific clientele was the target. There is no evidence that Mateen targeted the club because it was a gay club so we shouldn't assume he did.

That's also true, but some of these guys are reaching by pretending that Obama sympathising with the gay community in the immediate aftermath was the wrong thing to do. It wasn't, regardless of the mass murderers intention.

Beyond that, yeah, the media are fair game for criticism.

All the teeth gnashing and anger is kinda telling from some posters though.
 
In the book Prgrammed to Kill author Dave Mcgowan make a strong case that the classic "serial killer" profile that was so prevelant in the 70s, 80s, and 90s were actually programmed assets planted by various intelligence agencies. Excerpt from the book:

Rather than the profile of a lone predator, driven by his own internal demons, we find instead a profile of controlled assassins and controlled patsies, conditioned and programmed by a variety of intelligence fronts, including military entities, psychiatric institutions and Satanic cults.

When one begins to examine the lone mass shooter profile thats been so prevelant over the past 20 years you begin to see similar patterns. Are we really witnessing angry, mentally disturbed loners who just want to randomly kill large groups of people? Or are we witnessing programmed assets being sent out into society to stage events? Was Omar Mateen really just a radicalized muslim wanting to kill a bunch of gay people or was he a programmed asset sent to the Pulse Night Club by the same agency his father worked for? Inquiring minds want to know!
Phoenix Program brought stateside.
 
Ignore the trolls.

I'd say most people probably thought it was an anti homosexual targeted shooting. I'm one of them.

The news hits you hard with that narrative and then throws out a quiet "oh by the way, it wasn't after all" some time later.

Then people on here pretend like that one article you found had the same impact as the hours and hours of coverage they used with the anti gay shooting narrative. The difference in reachability is night and day.

It's why people hate the media. They manipulate you into believing things that are not true and if you just passively pay attention to them and don't do your own research, you think the world is a vastly different place than what's happening in reality.

It's also interesting how when you tell them the truth, they get angry. There's some weird ego thing at play where they don't want to admit they were misled.
 
That's also true, but some of these guys are reaching by pretending that Obama sympathising with the gay community in the immediate aftermath was the wrong thing to do. It wasn't, regardless of the mass murderers intention.

Beyond that, yeah, the media are fair game for criticism.

All the teeth gnashing and anger is kinda telling from some posters though.
I think you're reading things into some posts because you're skeptical of the motivation. Maybe you are right but it makes you come off as bad faith and as someone looking to disagree because you don't like the vibe of the argument even if its technically correct.
 
I think you're reading things into some posts because you're skeptical of the motivation. Maybe you are right but it makes you come off as bad faith and as someone looking to disagree because you don't like the vibe of the argument even if its technically correct.

He's just trolling because he doesn't like the person who started the thread.
 
It's a pretty good post where he says to ignore you? K.

Well it was pretty good.

It was balanced in terms of certain reflections of the media. It also included concessions on the poster's own part.

I don't really see anything wrong with it. There wasn't even any revisionism. Media reported what it seemed like at the time, that narrative changed as evidence came to light, yet no real move to address the initial misconceptions, which is understandably frustrating.

Perfectly good post.
 
I think you're reading things into some posts because you're skeptical of the motivation. Maybe you are right but it makes you come off as bad faith and as someone looking to disagree because you don't like the vibe of the argument even if its technically correct.

I mean, we've got posters ranting at me about the nature of 'communities', and how they're a fiction derived by the left cult and other incendiary nonsense... I don't see much 'good faith' in that, to be frank.

But whatever. I'm happy to bow out from this thread. I was happy to bow out last night, but I got tagged and quoted a bunch.

Some people are more extreme than others when it comes to dislike/distrust of the MSM, but we can all see some of the same faults from time to time.
 
It's also interesting how when you tell them the truth, they get angry. There's some weird ego thing at play where they don't want to admit they were misled.
Quotation-Friedrich-Nietzsche-Sometimes-people-don-t-want-to-hear-the-truth-because-34-72-80.jpg
 
I guess that's as close as we'll get to you admitting you were wrong and made an ass out of yourself.

well-bye.gif

Don't you start.

Your initial reply to my first post in this thread made no sense whatsoever.
 
Yes it did. You showed your ass in this thread.

Nope, it literally didn't.

I said "He shot up the gay community for no reason". You got cross about it. You wanted to point out it was for a reason (Syria), which flies totally in the face of your entire stance in the whole thread - which is that he shot up the gay community at random (ie, for no reason). You angrily refuted your own stance based on poor understanding.

You illiterate goon.
 
No one is white knighting him. Jesus christ you're beyond help. Explaining why things happen is not the same as excusing them you know that. Stop being lazy.

Then stop trying to explain a mass-murderers rampage. He shouldn't even be worth thinking of.
 
Back
Top