the GIFFORDS shooting

[royster]

"I have worked in the average American home for 26 years. I recently finished a job where the 14 year-old was constantly on the computer, playing "Modern Warfare", a game that connects players over the internet. Stalk and kill, all the while chatting over headphones with participants.

When this story broke, his mother asked me "how can this happen??" I asked if the game her own son was playing, day in and day out, might possibly affect a persons' thinking.

"Oh, no," she replied; "he knows what he's doing."

Same woman, different news article. I suggest that this is a false-flag operation from our own government.

"I simply can't believe MY government would do that sort of thing." I offered that by the very refusal to "believe" such a thing, you're giving them license TO DO IT.

DON'T ASK if you really don't want to know the answers."


the GIFFORDS shooting

My thoughts and two good web site referrences digesting the deeper meanings of the event.

I will provide a link (at the site) for non-members to comment. Roy

[desertrat]

It is possible this kid went mad playing video games . Playing Duke Nukem did not make me go mad . Once tho while driving my p.u. I did think about firing a maching gun from the game , I came back to reality quickly . As I understand one of this kids fav. books was the commenist manifesto. If this is true why would he listen to right wing talk of any kind ? I dont thing this guy is right , left , or has played too many video games , he has a seirous mental problem . desert rat

[1by1]

What is the motive of a government false flag? If you are going to make such an extraordinary claim you need extraordinary evidence to back it up.

I'm sorry, but the evidence suggests a mentally disturbed kid who believed too many conspiracy theories. If you have another theory you need to back it up with evidence that will make most of us believe it over the obvious story.

Your argument is a bit strange, I'm not sure how you go from video games to a false flag attack? Which are you accusing, the government or video games?

[royster]

My apology, 1by1. I mean that.

You either know or you don't. A veteran 9//1 Truther, I will no longer run in circles and make endless dashes to sources only to be sent back and do this endlessly. I hope you understand.

[1by1]

Well then, what was the point in posting this thread in the first place?

Not everything that happens is going to be the governments fault. Sometimes there are going to be random people going crazy and doing stuff. I'm not sure, but it seems like you have difficulty accepting that...

[royster]

Originally Posted by 1by1

Well then, what was the point in posting this thread in the first place?

For those who know.

[1by1]

For those who know.

Those who know what exactly?

Come on, stop playing games, I want to know your conspiracy in all its glory details!

And anyway, how do I know you aren't a government agent trying to distract me from the real truth eh?

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by royster

My apology, 1by1. I mean that.

You either know or you don't. A veteran 9//1 Truther, I will no longer run in circles and make endless dashes to sources only to be sent back and do this endlessly. I hope you understand.

The world you choose to live in seems very scary, royster.

[royster]

Not any scarier than yours, ThoughtAddict. I simply chose to take the blinders off.

[DerekMB]

I actually think, as strange as this may seem, the books are more to blame than the video games or movies this time around. I saw some of those books that kid read, and I can tell you, after reading many of not most of what he read, books and the ideas contained within them can have a profound effect on a person's psyche, much more so than any television or video game ever has. This kid was reading the communist manifesto at 19 years old, this is what's gonna happen. This only makes me think some books need a rated 'R' Rating and you can only read/purchase them with adult supervision and meeting an age requirement.

[GhostGoat]

Originally Posted by DerekMB

I actually think, as strange as this may seem, the books are more to blame than the video games or movies this time around. I saw some of those books that kid read, and I can tell you, after reading many of not most of what he read, books and the ideas contained within them can have a profound effect on a person's psyche, much more so than any television or video game ever has. This kid was reading the communist manifesto at 19 years old, this is what's gonna happen. This only makes me think some books need a rated 'R' Rating and you can only read/purchase them with adult supervision and meeting an age requirement.

Oh brother. I read Mein Kampf when I was 13, but I'm totally anti-nazi, and a very peaceful person with many Jewish friends. Loughner also read Ayn Rand, do you you think her books are dangerous too?

[DerekMB]

Originally Posted by GhostGoat

Oh brother. I read Mein Kampf when I was 13, but I'm totally anti-nazi, and a very peaceful person with many Jewish friends. Loughner also read Ayn Rand, do you you think her books are dangerous too?

Oh well I can easily turn that around on you if you wanna play that game:

Do you really think some idea's aren't dangerous?

[GhostGoat]

Originally Posted by DerekMB

Oh well I can easily turn that around on you if you wanna play that game:

Do you really think some idea's aren't dangerous?

Even if their ideas are dangerous, this is the USA, where everyone has the right to freedom of speech. That means they can write whatever they want. And if someone wants to read a book, the government can't stop them.

[t4488]

Well...

Pentagon aims to buy up book

[MariconesUnited]

I don't know about all this false flag stuff. Of course false flags are known to exist but I'm just not sure this is one of them. I don't think it's that relevant really. What is relevant is that we live in a system that promotes violence and agression. There was a really good article linked in that other forum and I'm reposting it here:

When Will They Figure It Out? by Butler Shaffer

The response of political figures and members of the mainstream media to the killing and wounding of a number of people in Tucson, was not surprising. Had the victims been "ordinary" people alone, the event would have been quickly noted as but another symptom of a conflict-ridden society. There would have been no daily hospital press conferences to update their conditions. But this shooting resulted in the killing of a federal judge, and the grave wounding of a member of congress: now we’re talking "serious" offenses!

Shortly after the shootings occurred, local and national politicians issued press releases that focused on government officials being the targets of such violence. To the politically-minded, the "ordinaries" (or "mundanes") who were killed or wounded were what they have come to regard as "collateral damage."

In coming days, the politically-correct chatter will consist of an endless string of non sequiturs: private gun ownership, Tea Party politics, angry rhetoric, the Internet, people who "hate" the government, television violence, et al. Even Sarah Palin has come in for criticism! Like the magician who uses brightly-colored cloths and quick movements in his act, such explanations are designed to distract our attention. As the Wizard of Oz angrily reacted to Toto’s knocking over the screen that revealed his systematic bamboozlement, "pay no attention to that man behind the screen."

The reality to which increasing numbers of people are becoming aware, is that politics is a violent and corrupt racket that functions on generating fears among those to be ruled. Politicians and other government officials are attracted to political careers not because they want to serve others, but because they have their own visions of what would be "good" for such others, and desire the power to enforce by violence – which is the essence of every government – their expectations. Such people easily find – usually within business organizations and labor unions – people who, unable to prosper in a free market grounded in voluntary transactions, are eager to resort to state violence. "Invisible hands" must be replaced by the "iron fist."

Every piece of legislation enacted by congress, every order issued by a court, every action undertaken by government officials – whether at a state, local, or national level – has behind it the power to enforce such edicts or acts by the most violent methods to which such officials deem it necessary to resort. From the cop on the corner, to SWAT teams, to men and women who torture others, to assassins, to those who conduct capital punishment, to military personnel armed with the deadliest of weapons, the state – supported by the special interests who have no qualms about employing such methods to further their interests – is nothing if not the institutionalization of violence.

Those who choose to repress an awareness of the vicious, violent, and dehumanized nature of the state will doubtless succumb to the self-serving claims of politicians who fashion themselves noble "public servants" who are victimized by the very violence they have made the central theme for their careers. Political systems – from the local Weed Control Commission to the Pentagon – are defined by their monopoly on the use of violence. Those who use lawful coercion to enforce their wills on others, should be the last heard to lament the "environment of violence" afoot in the land. They have been active participants in the continuing expansion of such life-destroying powers; they insist upon others respecting such authority for their own sense of identity and well-being.

Whenever I hear politicians bemoan such violence, I am reminded of a scene from one of the Godfather films. As Michael Corleone is in church participating in his grandson’s christening, the priest asks him if he rejects violence, to which Corleone answers "yes," even as his henchmen are going about murdering his adversaries. How politicians can, on any moral or intellectually honest grounds, condemn the violence that they daily legislate and fund, is beyond me. When John McCain angrily weighed in on the Tuscon shootings, I was reminded of his 2008 presidential campaign song-and-dance that went "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Those who, like this gunman, resort to violence in response to whatever grievances they hold, have reduced themselves to self-destructive acts of utter desperation. I have always rejected the use of violence – whether against the state or other individuals – not so much because of what it would do to them, but what it would do to me. I oppose political systems because I believe that a free, productive, and peaceful society can arise only through the voluntary acts of cooperative individuals; that efforts to impose order by violent means will always work to the destruction of society, as is now occurring. Were I to sanction violence as a solution to the problems our thinking has created, would be to admit that I have been wrong in my assumptions. As I have told a few people who work within political systems, "if I thought that violence could be used to accomplish my ends, I’d join you guys!"

The men and women who not only profit from the political racket, but whose identities are so entwined with the state as to be unable to imagine a life without an attachment to coercive power, are unlikely to make any intelligent changes in their lives. A few might begin to figure out that the "public" – for whom they like to pretend they serve – has a growing resentment of them. For the politically minded, the expression of such anger is seen not as a warning that the state has reached too far, but as another "problem" to be dealt with by a further extension of state power. A few members of the class of "ordinaries" may become so frustrated by all of this that they will see violent reaction as their only option. But for the rest of us – weary of the burdens of obedience, the costs of our being looted, and the deadly violence to which our lives are increasingly exposed – peaceful, non-destructive alternatives must be found. We would be better served not by physically attacking the state or its sociopathic operatives, but in walking away from them. Our survival as free men and women requires a secession of our minds from the chains of violence.

January 11, 2011

[royster]

Excellent, spot-on comment, MariconesUnited.

From a thread I started in "Spirituality":

"Are games instilling the change we need, or reinforcing same-old behavior? It can't be both.

Does entertainment promote the necessary changes society needs, or reinforcing the 'comfortable'?" Are these games productive toward the longevity of the human species, or contributing to its demise for the profit of the military-industrial-complex and other "industries"?

[t4488]

It sounds like something written by Ayn Rand. Which means I generally agree with it, although I'm not a cult-like fan of hers.

[royster]

Atlas Shreiked.

ATLAS SHRIEKED

[t4488]

LOL. The first line says millions of people don't have health care. They don't have health INSURANCE. Liberals, always making stuff up.

[GhostGoat]

Originally Posted by t4488

Well...

Pentagon aims to buy up book

Apples and oranges. Philosophy and political ideology are not the same as classified information.
Can you name one book on philosophy or ideology that the government has suppressed?

Originally Posted by t4488

LOL. The first line says millions of people don't have health care. They don't have health INSURANCE. Liberals, always making stuff up.

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Reuters

[t4488]

Originally Posted by GhostGoat

Apples and oranges. Philosophy and political ideology are not the same as classified information.
Can you name one book on philosophy or ideology that the government has suppressed?


[]

The smilie face was to indicate light heartedness. I was just pointing out an extreme and rare incident of censoring a book. I wasn't saying the government was constantly banning books.



Hmmm a study by a group that supports federal coverage paid for by the federal government. The premise has some basis I suppose but I'm dubious of their objectiveness. Fun fact : most families in the US spend more on eating out than they spend on health insurance.

[GhostGoat]

Sorry, t4488, the smiley face went right over my head. Wooosh!

In forums, when discussing politics I tend to be too serious sometimes. I apologize if I get a little 'snippy' on occassion.

Actually, I take back what I said earlier, about the US government not censoring any ideological viewpoints.

I wasn't aware of this until I read Brutha's recent thread on US Hypocrisy, but Al Jazeera's website is not accessible in the US. Some think this is due to commercial reasons, but I'm not so sure. Anyhow, I guess the US isn't quite the "land of the free" as much as I thought.