Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=175074
Phatscotty wrote:This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns
BigBallinStalin wrote:Most of the conjecture (read: guesswork) in that article is useless crap; however, there's one interesting scenario from that article if it's modified.
The author mentions that the FBI could've been involved. He cites examples of the FBI posing as Al-Qaeda, or some terrorist organization, in order to supply willing, domestic terrorists the means to achieve their goals, which (for all we know) are always cut short of completion. Before the plot is carried out, the FBI arrests the person. (This is basically entrapment, but from what I've heard, the courts say, "Nah-uh!").
The author uses a 80-20 hypothesis for law enforcement (80% are good, 20% are bad), and applies it to the FBI. Then he concludes that (it could be possible that) bad FBI agents let this happen intentionally. I find this to be unbelievable because the FBI screens and continually assesses its agents much better than other law enforcement agencies. To me, this scenario is as likely as Santa Claus being real.
Modified version:
What could be the case is that the FBI, going through their normal counter-terrorism routine, bungled it, and accidentally let this guy kill a bunch of people, but to me this is extremely unlikely, because (from what I've read) the FBI have several agents in place and at least one right next to the person who they're trying to arrest. Furthermore, why would they allow Holmes to activate his 12AM music bomb at his apartment (i.e. Holmes played music late at night to entice people to open the door, thus setting off the bombs)? I don't see why the FBI would allow that to happen--assuming they would be in position to stop that.
Again, it's extremely unlikely, but it is probable... whatever that's worth.
john9blue wrote:Phatscotty wrote:This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns
lol, yeah, haggis wants to take defenseless people out back and shoot them
he's not that malicious scotty. he just doesn't understand the consequences of his beliefs.
john9blue wrote:what is the fbi's "normal counter-terrorism routine"?
Phatscotty wrote:I know. you nailed it
Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Most of the conjecture (read: guesswork) in that article is useless crap; however, there's one interesting scenario from that article if it's modified.
The author mentions that the FBI could've been involved. He cites examples of the FBI posing as Al-Qaeda, or some terrorist organization, in order to supply willing, domestic terrorists the means to achieve their goals, which (for all we know) are always cut short of completion. Before the plot is carried out, the FBI arrests the person. (This is basically entrapment, but from what I've heard, the courts say, "Nah-uh!").
The author uses a 80-20 hypothesis for law enforcement (80% are good, 20% are bad), and applies it to the FBI. Then he concludes that (it could be possible that) bad FBI agents let this happen intentionally. I find this to be unbelievable because the FBI screens and continually assesses its agents much better than other law enforcement agencies. To me, this scenario is as likely as Santa Claus being real.
Modified version:
What could be the case is that the FBI, going through their normal counter-terrorism routine, bungled it, and accidentally let this guy kill a bunch of people, but to me this is extremely unlikely, because (from what I've read) the FBI have several agents in place and at least one right next to the person who they're trying to arrest. Furthermore, why would they allow Holmes to activate his 12AM music bomb at his apartment (i.e. Holmes played music late at night to entice people to open the door, thus setting off the bombs)? I don't see why the FBI would allow that to happen--assuming they would be in position to stop that.
Again, it's extremely unlikely, but it is probable... whatever that's worth.
Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+
john9blue wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I know. you nailed it
okay, but if you accuse people like haggis of wanting to murder others, then don't expect to be respected by them
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Most of the conjecture (read: guesswork) in that article is useless crap; however, there's one interesting scenario from that article if it's modified.
The author mentions that the FBI could've been involved. He cites examples of the FBI posing as Al-Qaeda, or some terrorist organization, in order to supply willing, domestic terrorists the means to achieve their goals, which (for all we know) are always cut short of completion. Before the plot is carried out, the FBI arrests the person. (This is basically entrapment, but from what I've heard, the courts say, "Nah-uh!").
The author uses a 80-20 hypothesis for law enforcement (80% are good, 20% are bad), and applies it to the FBI. Then he concludes that (it could be possible that) bad FBI agents let this happen intentionally. I find this to be unbelievable because the FBI screens and continually assesses its agents much better than other law enforcement agencies. To me, this scenario is as likely as Santa Claus being real.
Modified version:
What could be the case is that the FBI, going through their normal counter-terrorism routine, bungled it, and accidentally let this guy kill a bunch of people, but to me this is extremely unlikely, because (from what I've read) the FBI have several agents in place and at least one right next to the person who they're trying to arrest. Furthermore, why would they allow Holmes to activate his 12AM music bomb at his apartment (i.e. Holmes played music late at night to entice people to open the door, thus setting off the bombs)? I don't see why the FBI would allow that to happen--assuming they would be in position to stop that.
Again, it's extremely unlikely, but it is probable... whatever that's worth.
Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+
Hey, it's not all crap. It's probable guesswork after a slight modification!
re: underlined, I've never seen any evidence for this, and that article provided nothing but conjecture. Would you mind quoting that article, or providing a source?
Phatscotty wrote:I have not seen any specific evidence that shows he spent the exact money from the grant on the guns and gear. There is specific evidence his total arsenal totaled approximately $20,000, and there is specific evidence that he got $26,000 from the government. I was just plugging the two together as my opinion. If you want the links to those I will provide them, but I'm hoping you have already seen them for yourself. Let me know.
john9blue wrote:what is the fbi's "normal counter-terrorism routine"?
Phatscotty wrote:All I said was he got his money from the gov't. All you did was slander the facts, and you added nothing. Which makes your post a typical liberal response. That is to say you said nothing. You should at least try to match the caliber of the post that you are responding to. Of course, you prove over and over again that you can't, so you act like an immature baby. You aren't even in the same league as me. The reason you try to belittle me and what I say is because I absolutely destroy your false narratives, over and over and over again. That's why calling me names is all you can do.
I just shared a story. It's not like I am ruling things out, like you seem to be able to somehow do... How do you know it isn't political? Why do you seem to indicate that politics is off limits? Can't even talk about it huh?
I didn't turn to anything you stick in the mudd. Why don't you look at the rest of the posts in the thread, get some context.
Why don't you give us some answers then? How does an unemployed guy get thousands of dollars worth of top notch equipment????????????
What we have here is a 100% gov't handout funded mass shooting. I think I know why you are soooooo scared about what that means, because, with the way you think, you are fearing that our next step would be to act the way you do, and say "we need to take away all federal education grants, because it caused a mass shooting. If he didn't get thefederal money, there would not have been a mass shooting!
Phatscotty wrote:This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns
Phatscotty wrote:Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+
Phatscotty wrote:Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+
Phatscotty wrote:john9blue wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I know. you nailed it
okay, but if you accuse people like haggis of wanting to murder others, then don't expect to be respected by them
No, I did not mean to suggest Haggis was the one with the gun. I see how it comes off, but if people know me then they know what I mean. The context is built in to my posts.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:In sum, there are 3 options that explain your behaviour in this thread and in general.
1. You are simply a troll. A pretty good one at that.
2. Your debating consists of the lowest, dirtiest most dishonest tricks and massive ammounts of weaseling around. You routinely lead people to think you belive things you don't actually believe, you then let them debate you for 5 pages before revealing it was a red herring, you move the goal posts on a constant basis and you seem to have 0 interest in actually getting your views challenged. This is roughly what a significant number of people here believe about you.
3. You are massively off in both understanding what other people are saying to you and in expressing your views to other people. This huge gap in communication causes us to wrongly perceive you as #2. If this is the case, well it really would be fucking sad.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Sigh, FINE, I'll respond seriously.
For the record scotty, the only 100% serious debate I've ever had with you was the one about gay marriage, where I kept trying to get you to define exactly where the delimitation between fundamental rights and democratically decided upon laws is and you kept repeating "I support the voter's choice" like a mantra.
Frankly, I find debating with you on politics much like debating with jay on religion. Might be entertaining for a little while, but eventually you realize kicking the ball repeatedly against the wall is just a massive waste of time. Worse, not only are you completely unable to change your mind, but your debating "strategy" makes it look like you're sharpening your skills for political office. It is nigh impossible to get anything concrete out of you. People will debate you for pages destroying position A, at which point you'll come and say "haha position B was right all along, I told you so".
Anyway:Phatscotty wrote:All I said was he got his money from the gov't. All you did was slander the facts, and you added nothing. Which makes your post a typical liberal response. That is to say you said nothing. You should at least try to match the caliber of the post that you are responding to. Of course, you prove over and over again that you can't, so you act like an immature baby. You aren't even in the same league as me. The reason you try to belittle me and what I say is because I absolutely destroy your false narratives, over and over and over again. That's why calling me names is all you can do.
I'm gonna ignore the name calling, cause I really don't give a shit what your oppinion of me is.
We've been through this before. You posted the fucking article without any hint that you're doing it sarcastically or whatever.
When people post an article like that, the general assumption is that they support the views presented in the article.
Do you really not understand this?
Further, Iliad immediately calls you out on posting that nonsense. If it's a joke or honest mistake or whatever, here's the point where you should say "Woah man, I don't support that article, just posted it for shits and giggles".
Instead you post.I just shared a story. It's not like I am ruling things out, like you seem to be able to somehow do... How do you know it isn't political? Why do you seem to indicate that politics is off limits? Can't even talk about it huh?
I didn't turn to anything you stick in the mudd. Why don't you look at the rest of the posts in the thread, get some context.
Why don't you give us some answers then? How does an unemployed guy get thousands of dollars worth of top notch equipment????????????
This further indicates you actually support the article. You following me? You continue for several posts before, finally, slowly starting to distance yourself a bit from the article.
This is dishonest, terrible debating, and one of the main reasons why 90% of the people on this forum don't take you seriously.
When you get called on something FUCKIN STATE YOUR POSITION CLEARLY. Stop weaseling around.
Now, you come back. Quote the fuckin article again and state you won by talking about something completely different than the subject of the article you quoted.
Iliad was appaled that you were posting conspiracy theories when people had JUST DIED. What the f*ck does his reaction have to do with the goddamn government handouts. He was objecting to the ridiculous brainwashed stuff. I cannot believe you really don't understand this.
To then come back and celebrate your weaseling by declarin victory and calling him names ... it's just beyond belief.What we have here is a 100% gov't handout funded mass shooting. I think I know why you are soooooo scared about what that means, because, with the way you think, you are fearing that our next step would be to act the way you do, and say "we need to take away all federal education grants, because it caused a mass shooting. If he didn't get thefederal money, there would not have been a mass shooting!
See, you're doing it again.
From most posters this would seem like a harmless joke-ish post. If pressed on it they would subsequently clarify their position and initiate a real debate. From you though, this is just the start of another round of weaseling.
"100% gov't handout funded mass shooting" - exactlyt the kind of term I'd expect your average scumbag politician to use.
Tell me, if it turned out that he had saved the money for the guns by working at Walmart, would it then be called a "100% Walmart funded mass shooting" ?
How the f*ck is it even relevant where he got the money from ? You really think 20k is the limiting factor stopping some nut from a shooting spree? You really think without the government handout it would have been impossible for him to get the guns even though he doesn't give a shit about the consequences?Phatscotty wrote:This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns
Actually, I don't want to take your guns. Actually I believe gun ownership is an important liberty in the US, more for moral/mental/symbolic reasons than anything, and the government should not remove it.
I do, of course, think there should be some restrictions in place. I do not know exactly where these restrictions should be, much as I don't know at which exact point abortions should become illegal.
I'm annoyed that my position on this issue is made harder to defend because of pretend action heroes like yourself that think they could take down a guy with an automatic riffle and body armour in a dark smoke filled theater.
I'm sorry that I don't completely fit into your binary liberal/conservative view of the world.Phatscotty wrote:Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+
Where did you say it shouldn't be taken seriously. Show me please.
I've already explained why you appeared to most people that you were taking it seriously.
In sum, there are 3 options that explain your behaviour in this thread and in general.
1. You are simply a troll. A pretty good one at that.
2. Your debating consists of the lowest, dirtiest most dishonest tricks and massive ammounts of weaseling around. You routinely lead people to think you belive things you don't actually believe, you then let them debate you for 5 pages before revealing it was a red herring, you move the goal posts on a constant basis and you seem to have 0 interest in actually getting your views challenged. This is roughly what a significant number of people here believe about you.
3. You are massively off in both understanding what other people are saying to you and in expressing your views to other people. This huge gap in communication causes us to wrongly perceive you as #2. If this is the case, well it really would be fucking sad.
---
Holy shit, haven't written a post this big in a while.
Btw, for future reference. THAT is how a serious reply from me looks like. Check my recent exchange with greece about atheism/agnosticism for more examples.
It seems to be relatively easy for most people to tell when I'm being serious or not, but who the hell knows with you, better make sure I guess.
Iliad wrote:I'm quoting this so Scotty can't edit his way out of shame.
Jesus fucking Christ man, is there anything you can't turn into political fodder? And when did you turn into outright conspiracy theory level of idiocy and delusion? People died Scotty, FFS have some decency.
) to say "if it wasn't for the unemployment checks and federal grant money, this would have never happened" they are both equally ridiculousGeneral Brock II wrote:Interestingly enough, the OP has it right. If somebody had have had a gun or some other weapon capable of firing a projectile, then perhaps not as many people would have died. Ever wondered why crime rates are low in the Texas countryside? Why people still feel comfortable keeping their doors unlocked?
Phatscotty wrote: .
But, officially and for the record, what I intended to suggest with that photo, as you correctly pointed out, is the people who want guns banned usually end up killing the people who's guns the took away, whether Haggis is aware of that or not. It's not like we can afford to give the gun takers the benefit of the doubt when history proves what the results can be, and history proves those results are the worst possible results.
.
Phatscotty wrote:We don't budge an inch on ANY of our freedoms Player. Give them an inch, they take a mile.
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:We don't budge an inch on ANY of our freedoms Player. Give them an inch, they take a mile.
Unless it's a freedom you don't like, of course. Then it's different.
