• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Trump HIRE the San Bernardino shooters....!?

DifferentDrummr said:
Argumentum populum does not apply to academic publications, since they're subject to review.

And your fallacy: no evidence to support you.
Click to expand...

Argumentum populum and also false authority apply to everybody.

You cannot take a name from a language that did not exist at the time and attribute it to a god.

Allah's name is Allah. The language is Arabic. There is no other Allah besides Allah. And Allah has no other names.
 
Riveroaks said:
You sure ass-u-me a lot -- about me and about others.

If there were 3 shooters correctly described by 2 independent witnesses, then I am guessing that the 3rd one is still out there, and he could be the neighbor who checked himself into a state mental hospital.

We just don't know.

Sally's original report in her 911 call was 3, that is correct.

I had not heard about anyone else also reporting 3, so that is news to me.

And you should stop ass-u-me-ing because it is not smart.
Click to expand...

Just calling them as I see them Riveroaks. I know you only from your posts here, and I hope I am wrong, but so far it appears you are quick to doubt any concerned citizen's statements, and quick to accept any government statements.

I still take hand written notes as I read, and wrote only the 2 names. I'm quite sure there were 3 who saw and reported the shooters as being 3 white guys, athletic or muscular, heavily armed.

You may be "guessing" that the third guy is out there, but if witness Hernandez is correct, all three are out there because they drove away in the same SUV, if what he claimed really happened.

Yeah, I know what you mean--assuming something and guessing at something can quickly embarrass the person who does either. :mrgreen:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Just calling them as I see them Riveroaks. I know you only from your posts here, and I hope I am wrong, but so far it appears you are quick to doubt any concerned citizen's statements, and quick to accept any government statements.

I still take hand written notes as I read, and wrote only the 2 names. I'm quite sure there were 3 who saw and reported the shooters as being 3 white guys, athletic or muscular, heavily armed.

You may be "guessing" that the third guy is out there, but if witness Hernandez is correct, all three are out there because they drove away in the same SUV, if what he claimed really happened.

Yeah, I know what you mean--assuming something and guessing at something can quickly embarrass the person who does either. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Your quick to discount investigator finding because they are the "govt"

Are all witness statements accurate? They may state what they believe. It is what the other evidence supports.
 
mike2810 said:
Your quick to discount investigator finding because they are the "govt"

Are all witness statements accurate? They may state what they believe. It is what the other evidence supports.
Click to expand...

Considering that 3 different witnesses reported seeing 3 athletic white males going into the building with guns, there is consistency, yet you, it seems, would have me ignore those facts. Mike's MO. ;)
 
DifferentDrummr said:
... to discredit Obama and the Democrats?
Click to expand...


Interesting theory - after all - it has benefited Trump, but that might be more the fault of the liberal media and the democrats than anything else. Trump's views are getting free air time, and the more the Left denounced him - the more they drive viewers to Trump's corner. If they were smart - they'd ignore (and refuse to publish) what Trump says. But, democrats have never been known for their smarts - have they?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Considering that 3 different witnesses reported seeing 3 athletic white males going into the building with guns, there is consistency, yet you, it seems, would have me ignore those facts. Mike's MO. ;)
Click to expand...

The security video begs to differ.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Considering that 3 different witnesses reported seeing 3 athletic white males going into the building with guns, there is consistency, yet you, it seems, would have me ignore those facts. Mike's MO. ;)
Click to expand...

And witnesses are always right when they support what you want to believe and always wrong when they don't.

The far more reliable physical evidence in corroboration with other witnesses says 2 shooters.

Stop with the narrow focus Henry, it is why you fail. Big picture.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The security video begs to differ.
Click to expand...

What security video?

Can security videos be tampered with?

Does your security video record both the entry of the shooters and their exit?
 
Mark F said:
And witnesses are always right when they support what you want to believe and always wrong when they don't.

The far more reliable physical evidence in corroboration with other witnesses says 2 shooters.

Stop with the narrow focus Henry, it is why you fail. Big picture.
Click to expand...

I haven't failed Mark, I'm just doing my due diligence on which way to interpret this TV event, what conclusions to reach.

You seem to have already made up your mind. Just 10 later I'm still trying to decide. So far the official narrative is like so many other official narratives--contradicted by certain inconvenient facts. The official narrative is failing, not me.
 
Thoreau72 said:
What security video?

Can security videos be tampered with?

Does your security video record both the entry of the shooters and their exit?
Click to expand...

Numerous security videos and other digital footprints. Like those spoken of here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-security-cameras-shooters-profile/76721938/

Can they be altered? Probably - I'm not in that business so I wouldn't know how to do it - but I'm sure others can.

But, what is the likelihood that all the different digital sources are "rigged?" Virtually nil.

I know it's exciting to think this was some sort of cover-up or false flag, but there's just too much evidence to the contrary.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Considering that 3 different witnesses reported seeing 3 athletic white males going into the building with guns, there is consistency, yet you, it seems, would have me ignore those facts. Mike's MO. ;)
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the questions. Typical MO.

No, I don't expect you to ignore facts. Just don't cherry pick and ignore all the other facts..

Remember Ferguson. Shot in the back, yet the medical examination determined something else. Other witnesses collaborated the LEO statements.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Numerous security videos and other digital footprints. Like those spoken of here:
Digital sleuths study cyber-clues in San Bernardino killers' trail of terror

Can they be altered? Probably - I'm not in that business so I wouldn't know how to do it - but I'm sure others can.

But, what is the likelihood that all the different digital sources are "rigged?" Virtually nil.

I know it's exciting to think this was some sort of cover-up or false flag, but there's just too much evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Maybe you linked to the wrong spot? The piece you linked me to does not provide any video of the shooters either entering or leaving the building, but maybe I just missed it somehow. Could you describe more precisely where that video is?

Your link took me to a site with a narrative written by somebody, and that narrative started with a conclusion--that the young and petite muslims committed the crime--and went on to discuss it.

Is there a video that contradicts or corroborates the testimony of Sally Abdelmageed and Juan Hernandez?
 
mike2810 said:
You didn't answer the questions. Typical MO.

No, I don't expect you to ignore facts. Just don't cherry pick and ignore all the other facts..

Remember Ferguson. Shot in the back, yet the medical examination determined something else. Other witnesses collaborated the LEO statements.
Click to expand...

Remember Sandy Hook, another story of a frail youngster performing astounding physical feats including incredible marksmanship and weapons skills. In that case, of course, we never got to see the bodies.

In this case we get to see 2 dead bodies, and are told that what those bodies did when they were alive was horrible, but we just ain't got no pictures of them doing the dirty deeds.

And we have witness statements from folks present that contradict the narrative.

I'm having trouble accepting the official story for those reasons.

Obviously, you are entitled to believe whoever you wish. I like to do my own thinking, and the false flag characteristics of this event grow bigger day by day.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I haven't failed Mark, I'm just doing my due diligence on which way to interpret this TV event, what conclusions to reach.

You seem to have already made up your mind. Just 10 later I'm still trying to decide. So far the official narrative is like so many other official narratives--contradicted by certain inconvenient facts. The official narrative is failing, not me.
Click to expand...

Due diligence is not what you do. You reach a conclusion, find narrow-focus evidence you think backs it up - no matter how weak - while ignoring everything else and then do not deviate from your pre-conceived conclusion no matter what happens after. It is a consistent pattern, demonstrated repeatedly.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Remember Sandy Hook, another story of a frail youngster performing astounding physical feats including incredible marksmanship and weapons skills. In that case, of course, we never got to see the bodies.

In this case we get to see 2 dead bodies, and are told that what those bodies did when they were alive was horrible, but we just ain't got no pictures of them doing the dirty deeds.

And we have witness statements from folks present that contradict the narrative.

I'm having trouble accepting the official story for those reasons.

Obviously, you are entitled to believe whoever you wish. I like to do my own thinking, and the false flag characteristics of this event grow bigger day by day.
Click to expand...

HD, you may have changed your forum name, but you have not changed your style of posting.:lamo

Yes, we both our entitled to our opinion.

I have trouble accepting stories from many sources you undoubtable use but rarely provide links for.

If someone disagrees with you , you assume they take what the officials say without question. Not always true.

So explain to me why the husband and wife were dressed in protective gear, had assault type weapons, pipe bombs, and large amount of ammo with them?
Please explain why the majority of witness statements do not support the three you accept.
Please explain the other evidence that is discovered is pointing to the fact it was the wife and husband.

I tend wait till all the facts are known before jumping to conclusions.

Interesting you have not brought up the "false flag" angle yet. Seems a few sites you probably read have.
 
Riveroaks said:
Argumentum populum and also false authority apply to everybody.

You cannot take a name from a language that did not exist at the time and attribute it to a god.

Allah's name is Allah. The language is Arabic. There is no other Allah besides Allah. And Allah has no other names.
Click to expand...

You cannot communicate with someone who does not want to.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Interesting theory - after all - it has benefited Trump, but that might be more the fault of the liberal media and the democrats than anything else. Trump's views are getting free air time, and the more the Left denounced him - the more they drive viewers to Trump's corner. If they were smart - they'd ignore (and refuse to publish) what Trump says. But, democrats have never been known for their smarts - have they?
Click to expand...

It's not up to the Democrats to publish or broadcast what Trump says: it's up to the MSM - and they do it because his antics sell. No other reason. If other people ignore it, they'll just be accused of agreeing with Trump.
 
mike2810 said:
HD, you may have changed your forum name, but you have not changed your style of posting.:lamo

Yes, we both our entitled to our opinion.

I have trouble accepting stories from many sources you undoubtable use but rarely provide links for.

If someone disagrees with you , you assume they take what the officials say without question. Not always true.

So explain to me why the husband and wife were dressed in protective gear, had assault type weapons, pipe bombs, and large amount of ammo with them?
Please explain why the majority of witness statements do not support the three you accept.
Please explain the other evidence that is discovered is pointing to the fact it was the wife and husband.

I tend wait till all the facts are known before jumping to conclusions.

Interesting you have not brought up the "false flag" angle yet. Seems a few sites you probably read have.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with any of the cases during the last several years in which poor folks, usually black and often involved at a mosque, are seduced by FBI informants into plotting terrorist acts? There have been quite a few of them, maybe 10 or more.

An idea is put in their head, money is provided, fake bombs and fake weapons are provided, it's all on tape and video, and it's all a sting? I think even 60 Minutes and HBO have covered this sort of "law enforcement". The Newburgh Five, or something like that, was one. Newburgh NY.

Poor black folks were entrapped and manipulated by federal informants. ATF did some of those years ago too.

That is an easy explanation how the young muslim couple wound up patsies for the "terrorist" role. As they are now dead, there will be no trial, and no insight. The media is doing its job of printing what it's been told, no questions asked. Or, as Scott Pelley demonstrated, a question asked, but the answer disregarded.

The official story does not wash. 3 athletic white guys do not really fit in with a man and his 100 pound wife, but the average American believes in Abbottabad, believes the nonsense of 911, believes what the government says about Benghazi, etc etc.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Are you familiar with any of the cases during the last several years in which poor folks, usually black and often involved at a mosque, are seduced by FBI informants into plotting terrorist acts? There have been quite a few of them, maybe 10 or more.
Click to expand...

And hardly limited to poor blacks or Muslims for that matter. None of the American Front suspects for example were black or Muslim. Or the Occupy group in Cleveland.

And it should be noted - ALL of those arrested before any acts of violence.

That is an easy explanation how the young muslim couple wound up patsies for the "terrorist" role. As they are now dead, there will be no trial, and no insight. The media is doing its job of printing what it's been told, no questions asked. Or, as Scott Pelley demonstrated, a question asked, but the answer disregarded.

The official story does not wash. 3 athletic white guys do not really fit in with a man and his 100 pound wife, but the average American believes in Abbottabad, believes the nonsense of 911, believes what the government says about Benghazi, etc etc.
Click to expand...

You can't know if the official story (which has not even been formulated yet) washes if you don't even have a plausible alternative to vet it against. And you don't. Not even close. What you think you have is some witnesses you claim exist but whom I bet you can neither name nor quote - all while ignoring everything else but what you want to believe - which is whatever isn't what you think the official story is.

I would like to say your story doesn't wash - but I can't because you don't even have one.
 
The Left and Obama need no help discrediting themselves.

However, there's a case for the WH pressuring the investigators into delaying giving out the names of those involved. [pro-Islam agenda they have]
 
Thoreau72 said:
Are you familiar with any of the cases during the last several years in which poor folks, usually black and often involved at a mosque, are seduced by FBI informants into plotting terrorist acts? There have been quite a few of them, maybe 10 or more.

An idea is put in their head, money is provided, fake bombs and fake weapons are provided, it's all on tape and video, and it's all a sting? I think even 60 Minutes and HBO have covered this sort of "law enforcement". The Newburgh Five, or something like that, was one. Newburgh NY.

Poor black folks were entrapped and manipulated by federal informants. ATF did some of those years ago too.

That is an easy explanation how the young muslim couple wound up patsies for the "terrorist" role. As they are now dead, there will be no trial, and no insight. The media is doing its job of printing what it's been told, no questions asked. Or, as Scott Pelley demonstrated, a question asked, but the answer disregarded.

The official story does not wash. 3 athletic white guys do not really fit in with a man and his 100 pound wife, but the average American believes in Abbottabad, believes the nonsense of 911, believes what the government says about Benghazi, etc etc.
Click to expand...

Diversion does not answer the questions asked of you.

Provide the sources of what your referring to to back up your claim.

It is interesting how you avoid answering questions by asking questions back. Not this time HD. Back up your opinion.
 
mike2810 said:
Diversion does not answer the questions asked of you.

Provide the sources of what your referring to to back up your claim.

It is interesting how you avoid answering questions by asking questions back. Not this time HD. Back up your opinion.
Click to expand...

Mike

In the Bias In the Media section I started a thread and another poster kindly provided the link to Scott Pelley's telephone interview with Sally Abdelmageed. If you're curious and doing your own due diligence, you should check it out. Assuming CBS has not pulled that down from the internet by now, because it is fatal to the official story.

Mark is still having trouble discovering what the official story is, but I'm guessing you understand it. A guy and his wife, both muslims, she weighing in around 100 pounds, attacked that center and killed and shot up a bunch of people there. I assume you know the rest of the story.

Besides Sally, there is Juan Hernandez, who spoke to a camera crew for Infowars. Their testimony deals a fatal blow to the official story, because both those witnesses describe 3 athletic and tall white men. She saw them enter the building where she worked, Hernandez only saw them hastily exit that building. Both describe "athletic" "muscular" white men in military garb.

So, Due Diligence Mike, what say thee? It's possible Trump did hire the shooters, not likely IMO, but possible. The trouble is Mike, that nobody saw a man and his 100 pound wife doing the shooting, but 2 maybe 3 people saw big white guys in the building.
 
its George Bush fault
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom