Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087048 Posts in 71973 Topics- by 19232 Members - Latest Member: Bach to the future
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Las Vegas shooting  (Read 4426 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #140 on: Oct 05, 2017, 06:25PM »

I don't think that what I said was supposed to mean that they are "pro terrorists", but shy of simply putting the blame where blame lies

Holy crap!

You originally said that they  "always denied there was any kind of Islamic terror." [emphasis added]

That's a pretty damned plain statement, and you used that lie to support the idea that the FBI might try to hide a terrorist plot.

Now you're backpedaling all the way to your newest statement. Hint: If you don't lie, you don't have to be a phony and backpedal out of confident statements you made earlier.

If they're 'shy of putting the blame where it lies', show me the cases of Islamic terror that were ultimately shown to be Muslim-related but that the FBI finally attributed to something else.

You can't do it, because it's not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #141 on: Oct 05, 2017, 06:38PM »

The FBI is still the Obama FBI, which always denied there was any kind of Islamic terror, as they always tried to paint a different picture. So, itís not surprising that less than 12 hours in, with no intel, said with confidence, this was not an ISIS attack, even though, after more than a year, still canít find evidence that there was Russian collusion with Trump.

This is hilarious. No evidence of Russian collusion?

DJT, Jr. has essentially admitted collusion. The emails show plainly that the campaign was looking for dirt on Hillary from the Russians (the fact that they didn't get what they were looking for doesn't disprove the intent to collude). The emails also show that the Russian arranging the meeting represented them as reflecting Russia's interest in electing Trump.

Those emails didn't come from some nefarious leak or the dreaded MSM, but from DJT, Jr. himself. He has admitted to at least attempting to get Russian help with the campaign, which is collusion.

Maybe you could define 'collusion' as excluding letting the Russians help Trump get elected by giving them dirt on Hillary.

Collusion isn't even questioned at this point. It's admitted and conceded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
nemomcnab

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Mar 21, 2013
Posts: 69

View Profile
« Reply #142 on: Oct 05, 2017, 06:50PM »

I don't think that what I said was supposed to mean that they are "pro terrorists", but shy of simply putting the blame where blame lies.

You can't deny however, that those that are reluctant to use the term "Islamic terrorists" have no problem claiming other groups are terrorists, like the extreme-right or alt-right. You mentioned Tim McVeigh, and president Clinton tried to paint Rush Limbaugh for being partially responsible. Were you upset when that happened? The media tried to paint Sarah Palin with the Gabby shooting. So, there's a lot of blame to go around here, as far as using terminology is concerned. Look at one of the latest Terrorist lists compiled by the last administration, you'll get my drift.

So, the point I was trying to make earlier, way earlier, was that in the investigation, if there were questions of this guy being recruited by ISIS, the FBI has a reputation of soft pedaling that rhetoric down, just as you suggested was the policy of the Obama administration.

That was nothing more than pure speculation yesterday when there were a whole of less facts than we know today.



Nothing you've said here indicates that you understand the policy that has existed since Bush the younger. Does calling out the "extreme right" in public somehow reduce the FBI's ability to thwart them as it does in the muslim world? The situations are not equivalent. Rush Limburger, Sarah Palin or any others of OUR countrymen who use violent rhetoric should be castigated for it. If we want the "peaceful" muslims in THEIR countries to help thwart the extremists, it behooves us to avoid disparaging their religion. It's just not that complicated.  Don't know In international diplomacy as in many other areas; words matter.

The policy was not "soft pedaling" the connections between ISIS and terrorist acts. It was simply not using words that sound like Islam=terrorism. So that the terrorists could not use those words for their own benefit. You seem to see political-correctness run amok everywhere you look. This was/is a policy based on very practical foreign policy and anti-terrorist goals, not some weird, lefty Islamophilia.


Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #143 on: Oct 05, 2017, 07:11PM »

This is how you learn untruths from being untruthful:

DDickerson:
Quote
So, itís not surprising that less than 12 hours in, with no intel, said with confidence, this was not an ISIS attack,

Did they say that, "with confidence"? No, they said they found 'no links' with ISIS. See the difference? They're describing the evidence they've turned up so far. So what you said was untrue, not that you care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #144 on: Oct 06, 2017, 05:29AM »



I still can't see any real use for these; except maybe to feel like Rambo and spend a lot on ammo.

Okay, I know I'm a broken record on this issue, but there's a good bit of rhetoric out there on not needing various things, and that's the wrong direction.

In a totalitarian society an individual is only allowed to have property or rights that he can prove he needs.

In a free society, the government is only allowed to take away property or rights that they prove is sufficiently harmful overall.

I think both approaches end up banning the bump stock, full auto weapons, grenade launchers, etc.  But the logic is totally different, and that difference is important.

I see a lot of facebook comments saying nobody needs a bump stock, so we should ban them.  That is so misguided it's scary.  They should be saying the risk of these outweighs the usefulness to such a degree that it justifies banning them. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9683

View Profile
« Reply #145 on: Oct 06, 2017, 05:38AM »

This is how you learn untruths from being untruthful:

DDickerson:
Did they say that, "with confidence"? No, they said they found 'no links' with ISIS. See the difference? They're describing the evidence they've turned up so far. So what you said was untrue, not that you care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

No, they said this wasn't associated with ISIS, then later they 'toned' it down a bit. Now, the sheriff is still thinking accomplices.

They said they have not found any links, which was their basis for their conclusions, but, this shooter has no digital footprint anywhere in social media to be found (yet), so they are still clueless as to his motivations.

Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3260

View Profile
« Reply #146 on: Oct 06, 2017, 05:43AM »

That's not true. They have always played down the Islamic aspect, since they consider Muslims to be a peaceful religion.
Dusty, why do you so desperately want this horrible event to be an Islamic attack?
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3260

View Profile
« Reply #147 on: Oct 06, 2017, 05:50AM »

I see a lot of facebook comments saying nobody needs a bump stock, so we should ban them.  That is so misguided it's scary.  They should be saying the risk of these outweighs the usefulness to such a degree that it justifies banning them. 
It won't really make a difference what they do or why they do it.  I understand your concern for their motives, there are good motives and bad motives that can achieve the same immediate goal, but the good motives are the ones to practice.

I remember a couple of people I worked with back in the early 80s that bought AR15s and figured out how to 'automate' them.  They merely held them off their shoulders by an inch or two and stuck some foam rubber between their finger and the front of the trigger guard.  They didn't get full M16 speed, but they got rapid fire and sore arms.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9683

View Profile
« Reply #148 on: Oct 06, 2017, 07:18AM »

Dusty, why do you so desperately want this horrible event to be an Islamic attack?

I only hope that the truth comes out. Nothing more. Hopefully, that's what we all want. Right?
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: Oct 06, 2017, 07:44AM »

I only hope that the truth comes out. Nothing more. Hopefully, that's what we all want. Right?

Not very damn likely.
 
Affirmation is far more important to many, and not only Deplorables.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #150 on: Oct 06, 2017, 10:43AM »

Okay, I know I'm a broken record on this issue, but there's a good bit of rhetoric out there on not needing various things, and that's the wrong direction.

In a totalitarian society an individual is only allowed to have property or rights that he can prove he needs.

In a free society, the government is only allowed to take away property or rights that they prove is sufficiently harmful overall.

I think both approaches end up banning the bump stock, full auto weapons, grenade launchers
Both approaches are valid and needed. In this case, something has obvious harm. Does it have any benefit? If not, why is it still legal?

You need to question BOTH in a pro vs con understanding.

Like the question of military styled rifles. Why? Oh so that men with small penises have something to play with in their "me" time. So they're legal now...
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #151 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:26AM »

Both approaches are valid and needed.

I don't see how the two can be reconciled.  They appear to be orthogonal.


Either we only have rights and property we can prove we need, all else are denied by the states; or we are allowed all rights and privileges that the state has not proven harmful. 

Our country is based on the latter, is it not? 
Logged

Tim Richardson
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #152 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:27AM »

The reality of the second amendment debate is that it attempts to make something over nothing.

The second amendment was one of the least debated amendments and remains one of the least judicially interpreted ones. The reason is simple: at writing, the founded distrusted standing armies with good reason. A militia just beat the strongest army on the globe so they wanted that approach to continue. The second amendment secured that.

Fast forward 150 years and we find that militias don't work over the long run, and have had de facto standing armies ever since.

At that time, the second amendment lost any real relevance.


The issue today is that the NRA has gone from an organization made of and for sport gun users to a mouthpiece for the gun industry.  They have set on an approach to sell as many guns and possible and to do that, they need to normalize them as much as possible. To that end, they deploy fear and distrust of everyone-government, fellow people- and sell a message that only you can protect you. So get a gun and stay alive. And the legally justify this they ally tighty with the Republican Party and regularly spout abuses of the second amendment even their own people called utterly ridiculous a few decades ago.

Constitutional rights don't protect bs like target shooting any more than they protect practicing knife throwing or sword juggling.
Logged
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7136
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #153 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:29AM »

So, Tim, you are saying the two sides are - "That which is not explicitly stated as legal is illegal", and "That which is not explicitly states as illegal is legal"
Am I reading you correctly?
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #154 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:33AM »

I don't see how the two can be reconciled.  They appear to be orthogonal.
Only if you consider it all or nothing, and such reasoning does not survive reality anyhow.


Quote
Our country is based on the latter, is it not? 
Our country was based on the notion that government was concerned with and participated in by a minority of rich white men. Hence why the only federal election that even landowning men could vote is was the house.

A board policy of freedom isn't exactly a strong underpinning by those who owned other people and allowed their women no voice.

Reality is that they contradicted or compromised their principles in numerous ways from the very beginning. There one way or the other, but a murky middle grounded often decided on money and popular opinion.
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #155 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:39AM »

No, they said this wasn't associated with ISIS, then later they 'toned' it down a bit. Now, the sheriff is still thinking accomplices.


Can you show where the FBI said 'confidently' (as you put it) that there was no ISIS connection. Every statement I've read used the term 'we have found no evidence' or 'we have found no links', etc. Here's an actual quote:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/02/554976369/section-of-las-vegas-strip-is-closed-after-music-festival-shooting

Quote
Responding to reports by the ISIS-associated news agency Amaq that the terrorist group had claimed responsibility for the attack ó and that Paddock had converted to Islam ó FBI Las Vegas Special Agent in Charge Aaron Rouse said on Monday that the agency has "determined, to this point, no connection with an international terrorist group."

Note the disclaimer: "to this point."

DDickerson:
Quote
They said they have not found any links, which was their basis for their conclusions, but, this shooter has no digital footprint anywhere in social media to be found (yet), so they are still clueless as to his motivations.

First of all, they don't even claim to have drawn any 'conclusions', so you're wrong. I'm not particularly troubled by his lack of 'social media footprint'. I know a lot of people that age, many of them as customers, and I'd say maybe half of them don't do Facebook, and few of them use Twitter. When the FBI says they haven't found any links "to this point" it means precisely that. His lack of a 'footprint' does not contradict that. Did you think the FBI didn't look for mob links, terrorist links, etc. before the advent of social media? Widespread use of social media is relatively new, but law enforcement agencies have used that same language for many years.

This is a baffling case. If there turn out to be accomplices, or an ISIS connection, or involvement of the girlfriend, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

But it's absurd to pretend the FBI covers up Islamic involvement in terror attacks, or deny that they exist. You've failed to give even one good example where the final conclusions of the FBI denied apparent Islamic involvement with any attack.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #156 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:41AM »

I only hope that the truth comes out. Nothing more. Hopefully, that's what we all want. Right?

It isn't even what you want.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:45AM »

Both approaches are valid and needed. In this case, something has obvious harm. Does it have any benefit? If not, why is it still legal?
 
You need to question BOTH in a pro vs con understanding.
 
Like the question of military styled rifles. Why? Oh so that men with small penises have something to play with in their "me" time. So they're legal now...
I don't see how the two can be reconciled.  They appear to be orthogonal.
 
Either we only have rights and property we can prove we need, all else are denied by the states; or we are allowed all rights and privileges that the state has not proven harmful. 
 
Our country is based on the latter, is it not?

I have to agree mostly with Bob on this (although I also have to wonder about the obsession with phalli and obviously mis-calibrated rulers). When something is harmful it changes the free society private property standards. This is very much the same kind of limitation to personal freedoms as applies to the commons in general. It's not so simple as if it can cause harm need and/or benefit is required, but the basic principle is on target as long as the bigger picture isn't ignored--as long as the cost-benefit analysis is honest and informed, and balanced by appropriate oversight ... not that this is an easy formula to nail down, particularly for such a highly politicized and ... intemperately debated issue.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #158 on: Oct 06, 2017, 11:59AM »

I don't see how the two can be reconciled.  They appear to be orthogonal.
 
Either we only have rights and property we can prove we need, all else are denied by the states; or we are allowed all rights and privileges that the state has not proven harmful. 
 
Our country is based on the latter, is it not?
I have to agree mostly with Bob on this (although I also have to wonder about the obsession with phalli and obviously mis-calibrated rulers). When something is harmful it changes the free society private property standards. This is very much the same kind of limitation to personal freedoms as applies to the commons in general.

Well, maybe I stated it badly.

The way I see it, cost benefit analysis if it shows harm must limit personal freedom.  I'm fine with that, at least in principle - none of us live alone on a desert island.  Absent that analysis, everything is legal.

I am seeing a contrast with the "but you don't need XXX"  approach. That seems to imply nothing is legal unless you can prove it should be. 

The burden of proof should be on the state to show harm, rather than on the individual to show need. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12299

View Profile
« Reply #159 on: Oct 06, 2017, 12:05PM »



At that time, the second amendment lost any real relevance.



I'm not a second amendment scholar and don't pretend to know all the reasons.  Or much care.

But it seems to me another concept has been inserted that confuses the issue.

US courts have consistently upheld the right to exercise self defense, have they not? Even in some rather dubious circumstances.   That would seem to generate gun ownership as an implied secondary right, because clearly disabled or small or female people who would have no other option can't be denied the right to self defense.

We take that "right" for granted in the US but it is by no means universal across the world. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: