Investing in Precious Metals 101 ad
  • Daily Digest
    Image by lovingyourwork.com, Flickr Creative Commons

    Daily Digest 6/12 – ‘Summer Of Shocks’ Threatens Market Mayhem, Is $100 Oil On The Horizon?

    by DailyDigest

    Sunday, June 12, 2016, 3:34 PM

Economy

How a summer of shocks threatens to bring mayhem to the markets (Aaron M.)

The most important decisions will be those made by policymakers in the US, on whether to raise interest rates, and votes cast by the British public, on the UK’s continued membership of the European Union.

Also on the schedule are the Spanish general elections, where voters could reject austerity imposed upon them by Brussels, and the potential for radical new monetary stimulus from the Bank of Japan.

China Tries to Redistribute Education to the Poor, Igniting Class Conflict (jdargis)

Parents in at least two dozen Chinese cities have taken to the streets in recent weeks to denounce a government effort to expand access to higher education for students from less developed regions. The unusually fierce backlash is testing the Communist Party’s ability to manage class conflict, as well as the political acumen of its leader, Xi Jinping.

The Land Below Zero: Where Negative Interest Rates Are Normal (jdargis)

Central bankers looking to Denmark for evidence of such trauma aren’t likely to see much. If anything, they might find the Danes’ approach tempting. A certain amount of financial weirdness aside, their country is mostly free of the distortions economic theory tells us to expect, suggesting negative rates may deserve to move from taboo to the standard monetary policy toolbox.

While Young Britons Favor Staying in E.U., They Aren’t Big on Voting (jdargis)

In this case, some analysts say, it could be particularly hard to motivate them, not just because many of them will be immersed in summer activities, but also because they are being asked to embrace the status quo rather than to take up an idealistic cause of change of the type that typically energizes young people.

The Surprising Problem With U.S. Manufacturing: It’s Creating Too Many Jobs (jdargis)

Job openings in manufacturing are at a 15-year high. Layoffs are at a long-term low. Wages are rising faster in manufacturing than in the economy as a whole. The unemployment rate in manufacturing is below the overall average. Please go to the item for the full presentation, but here is one of several representative charts, showing continued recovery after the crash of 2008.

Some people may live with surprisingly small brains (jdargis)

Thanks to many other medical case studies, we now know that the brain is capable of astonishing recovery after substantial damage – even if the personality is permanently altered. Watch the video below to learn more about one particularly astonishing story of injury and recovery.

Is $100 oil on the horizon? (Adam)

Earlier this month, one investor bought more than 4 million barrels worth of call options at $110 and $80 a barrel for 2019 and 2020 in several transactions. In addition, another 800,000 barrels worth of $60 a barrel call also changed hands. The deals are public because of new regulations introduced in the U.S. by the Dodd-Frank Act. The disclosures don’t reveal the final buyer.

Why the Oil Price Rally Might Falter (jdargis)

But some might return quite quickly. The biggest new disruption is already being resolved: the wildfire that swept through Alberta’s oil sands and cut daily production by about 1.2 million barrels. Canadian production is returning slowly and will continue to add supply.

Gold & Silver

Click to read the PM Daily Market Commentary: 6/10/16

Provided daily by the Peak Prosperity Gold & Silver Group

Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to [email protected]. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."

Related content
» More

116 Comments

  • Sun, Jun 12, 2016 - 4:52pm

    #1

    jtwalsh

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 261

    Here we go again

    Time2help:

    Don't forget taking focus off the Clinton email and funding of Clinton foundation memes.

    I have been one of the longest hold out skeptics concerning false flags and the deep state but with what I have heard so far even I have trouble explaining this any other way.

    My thoughts and prayers with the victims and their families and loved ones.

    God help us all.

    JT

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 12, 2016 - 5:08pm

    #2

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    FFT

    Orlando Mass Shooting: Another Obvious False Flag and Government PsyOp (State of the Nation)

    First Suggestion the Orlando Gay Nightclub Shooting was a Drill (Sabatour 365)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 12, 2016 - 5:17pm

    #3

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Here we go again

    50 killed in shooting at Florida nightclub in possible act of Islamic terror (FoxNews)

    Worst U.S. Mass Shooting (CNN)

    Some interesting initial effects:

    • Fuels the "Islamic Terror", "Muslims are the baddies" rhetoric.
    • Bolsters the "guns are bad" meme. Let's "talk about guns" again.
    • Bolsters the "need more funding to fight terror" meme.
    • Spin to push the LGBT community up-in-arms over both Islamic Terror and guns.
    • Distraction from political/voting fraud shenanigans currently surrounding Clinton/Sanders. 
    • Assailant identified shortly after incident.
    • Assailants backstory fits a convenient narrative.

    This event has numerous characteristics of a false flag operation.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 12, 2016 - 5:52pm

    #4

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Legal 2012

    The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public (Business Insider)

    [quote]Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, who released a highly critical report regarding the distortion of truth by senior military officials in Iraq and Afghanistan, dedicated a section of his report to Information Operations (IO) and states that after Desert Storm the military wanted to transform IO "into a core military competency on a par with air, ground, maritime and special operations."

    Davis defines IO as "the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own."

    IO are primarily used to target foreign audiences, but Davis cites numerous senior leaders who want to (in the words of  Colonel Richard B. Leap) "protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will" by repealing the Smith-Mundt Act to allow the direct deployment of these tactics on the American public.

    Davis quotes Brigadier General Ralph O. Baker — the Pentagon officer responsible for the Department of Defense’s Joint Force Development (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines) — who defines IO as activities undertaken to "shape the essential narrative of a conflict or situation and thus affect the attitudes and behaviors of the targeted audience" and equates descriptions of combat operations with standard marketing strategies:

    For years, commercial advertisers have based their advertisement strategies on the premise that there is a positive correlation between the number of times a consumer is exposed to product advertisement and that consumer’s inclination to sample the new product. The very same principle applies to how we influence our target audiences when we conduct COIN.

    Davis subsequently explains the "cumulative failure of our nation’s major media in every category" as they continually interviewed only those senior U.S. officials who had top-level access, even as the officials given that clearance were required to stick to "talking points" given to them by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

    If the NDAA goes into effect in its current form, the State Department and Pentagon can go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets and directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public.

    [/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 1:20am

    #5

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Islamic terrorism

    Is there ever any real terrorism? This sure looks real to me, unless the doer has been preparing for this since birth to Afghan parents who he no doubt chose for the way they would help cover his tracks 30 years later.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 1:29am

    Reply to #5

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    (Un)real terrorism

    [quote=thc0655]

    Is there ever any real terrorism? This sure looks real to me, unless the doer has been preparing for this since birth to Afghan parents who he no doubt chose for the way they would help cover his tracks 30 years later.

    [/quote]

    Either way, fireworks. Social media is exploding over this. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 1:31am

    Reply to #3

    KugsCheese

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 821

    Time2help wrote:50 killed in

    [quote=Time2help]

    50 killed in shooting at Florida nightclub in possible act of Islamic terror (FoxNews)

    Worst U.S. Mass Shooting (CNN)

    Some interesting initial effects:

    • Fuels the "Islamic Terror", "Muslims are the baddies" rhetoric.
    • Bolsters the "guns are bad" meme. Let's "talk about guns" again.
    • Bolsters the "need more funding to fight terror" meme.
    • Spin to push the LGBT community up-in-arms over both Islamic Terror and guns.
    • Distraction from political/voting fraud shenanigans currently surrounding Clinton/Sanders. 
    • Assailant identified shortly after incident.
    • Assailants backstory fits a convenient narrative.

    This event has numerous characteristics of a false flag operation.

    [/quote]

    Takes heat off Hillary.  See KGB.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 2:23am

    Reply to #5

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    THC...

    Here's some evidence to ponder;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8NEv1rvDFM

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 3:32am

    Reply to #5

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Co-conspirator?

    It makes sense that Mateen would use the efforts of coconspirators to increase the body count. And it would be very easy for all of them to slip away in the chaos. Then it would be very easy for the police to "conclude" he acted alone (because that neatly wraps the case up and keeps them from having to conduct a manhunt for vaguely described suspects). Plus the liberal MSM has a motivation to forget co-conspirators. They want to convince the public that Islamic terrorism doesn't really exist except for the occasional deranged lone wolf. The existence of Islamic co-conspirators who escaped is not part of the meme and must be suppressed. 

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 4:47am

    #6

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    If intended to distract, the shooting incident was AWESOME

    In the same way a smelly red herring fish is dragged across the olfactory trail of a hound, a really good distraction has got to activate the limbic system of most everyone.  And this shooting incident has something for almost everyone.

    1.  Muslim sleeper terrorists

    2.  Evil Muslims

    3.  Muslims as intolerant of the mores of progressive societies.

    4.  Gays. What does God (Allah) think of homosexuality?

    5.  Guns.  Assault weapons.  These have no place in civilized society….

    6.  Guns.  Concealed carry of other citizens.  If someone could have shot back….

    7.  Metal detectors.  They should have had 'em at the club.

    The only think it might have missed was transgender bathroom assignment, abortion and school prayer.

    If the presumption is correct that Hillary is the designated leader of the joint AngloZionist MIIC, then many resources will be brought to bear on making us forget voting irregularities, the corruption of the super-delegate system, and the crony favoritism of the cash for favors Clinton Foundation.  Etc. Etc. Etc.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 5:15am

    Reply to #3

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Islamic law and scholars agree: homosexuals must be killed

    I can't wait for the liberals and progressives to dance around this one.  Up until today, Obama and the progressives have included Muslims among the many minority victim groups who must be protected from evil (conservative, white) people in the US.  What no one on the left ever acknowledges is that the Koran, Islamic law (sharia)  and the accepted Islamic legal scholars all agree that homosexuality must be punished by death.  Mateen took this Islamic law seriously and acted upon it for ISIS and Allah.

    https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/06/12/orlando-night-club-attack-by-known-wolf-terrorist-previously-investigated-by-fbi/

    So this is going to strain the dominant meme because in this case Muslim(s) are killing gays for Islamic religious motives in the name of a fundamentalist Islamic organization (ISIS) which itself executes homosexuals.  So the natural result would be that Muslims be cast out of the rainbow coalition of victim groups.  To prevent this, the traditional Islamic view of homosexuality must be hidden from the public. That's going to be tough, but they've ignored bigger realities so I think they may succeed in blinding the public on this too.  Expect the media to parade a list of "moderate" Muslim speakers on the air to repeatedly state that "real" Muslims don't hate gays, just the disturbed inauthentic radical Muslims. What you won't hear out of the mouths of "moderate" Muslims are references to the Koran and respected Islamic scholars to support their "moderate" opinions because the Koran and Islamic scholars are united in the view that homosexuals must be executed.  Not only that but Muslims who say otherwise may themselves be subject to the death penalty.  Here it is already in the Orlando Sentinel:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-20160612-story.html

    "There is never, ever any justification for such unacceptable crimes against humanity, crimes against God, crimes against our country," said Hassan Shibly, executive director of the Florida branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

    His statement was one of several offered by local Islamic groups. Imam Muhammad Musri, president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, urged people to pray on what he called "a heart-breaking morning."

    At a midday news conference, Carlos Guillermo Smith, a representative of Equality Florida, an LGBT advocacy group, stood beside Shibly.

    Smith reiterated that the two communities are united.

    "Let me be clear: Equality Florida stands in solidarity with the Muslim and Islamic community and in opposition to the intolerance, discrimination and hate crimes that both of our communities experience," Smith said.

    Furthermore, will anyone mention that cops are widely viewed as being bigoted and hating gays but apparently didn't display any of that in this instance?  Cops (most of them white, male, heterosexual cops) rushed in to protect the gay patrons of the Pulse club with total disregard for their own safety. One of the white male SWAT members who rushed the shooter and killed him took a rifle round from the shooter to his ballistic helmet, causing a nasty looking bruise on his forehead (close call there!). Will anyone who has been legitimately concerned about the militarization of police recognize that in this situation police used an armored vehicle to smash through a wall and rescue club patrons in close proximity to the shooter (who was then attacked by SWAT)? In spite of the fear of misuse of military equipment in the hands of police, this was one perfect example of what the equipment can sometimes be needed for.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 12:06pm

    #7

    KennethPollinger

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 22 2010

    Posts: 616

    And what do the Old and New Testaments say

    about homosexuality?  Has anyone done in-depth research on THIS?   Yes, absolutely, READ the Koran as well as the Old Testament, thoroughly

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 1:06pm

    Reply to #3

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    OT vs Koran

    Tom-

    What no one on the left ever acknowledges is that the Koran, Islamic law (sharia)  and the accepted Islamic legal scholars all agree that homosexuality must be punished by death.  Mateen took this Islamic law seriously and acted upon it for ISIS and Allah.

    So I'm going to drag up that old favorite, Leviticus 20:13.  Assuming the Bible is the word of God:

    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    Of course, again according to the Bible (and "bible scholars will agree, also"), you also get that same punishment – death – for:

    • committing adultery
    • cursing your father or mother
    • having sex with your dad's wife
    • having sex with your daughter-in-law
    • having sex with an animal (and the innocent animal gets whacked too – I always found that one to be particularly unfair)

    But these days, adulterers get away scot free, as do father-cursers, mother…lovers, and (generally speaking) those into "animal husbandry."  And fortunately, so do gay men.

    One hopes those who find similarly OT-style proscriptions in the Koran don't decide to implement them in the here and now either.

    Frankly, I'd be just as frosted at some hypothetical group of "Christians" practicing "Old Testament justice" as I feel towards ISIS (and others) dragging this crap out of the Koran and applying it in the modern age.  It's not the book I object to, its how people decide to use it.

    My sense is, the cowardly fellow probably was upset because he had "certain conflicted feelings" towards MSM that caused him to hate himself so much, he directed it outwards rather than inwards. Someone gets triggered badly enough to shoot more than 100 unarmed people, it's not just a random thing, nor is it about religion, nor is it about him acting for ISIS.  Its very personal to him.  That's just my opinion, of course.

    Here's a thought: my Ghurka brother-in-law said that in Afghanistan (to which the Ghurkas have deployed some large number of times) it is very common to see "man/boy" couples.  He called it "Gay Thursdays" and after doing some research, (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/brinkley/article/Afghanistan-s-dirty-little-secret-3176762.php) I note that its more pedophilic than anything else – and it really does happen on Thursdays.  If a strict societal interpretation of your religion ends up denying men any meaningful interaction with the opposite sex, you end up wrapping the whole place around a very gay axle.  Human sexuality will not be denied, and the boys end up paying the price.

    A too-literal (and yet selective) interpretation of Holy Scripture can cause a whole lot of mischief, it seems.

    So yeah.  I don't think this guy shot a bunch of people because he was fighting for "ISIS".  I think it is possibly "something else" entirely.

    But for sure, full points for the armored vehicle, the mostly-heterosexual swat team, and their eventual rescue of the victims and termination of the perpetrator.  (n.b.: friend of mine was in a relationship with a gay swat team commander for many years; they're not all straight, as I'm sure you know)

    Isn't it interesting that our NSA Panopticon didn't see this one coming either?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 2:29pm

    #8

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    Comparing BLUE Muslims with GREEN Christians

    I think that this is a place where the Spiral Dynamics Developmental Stage theory can be very helpful.

    All religions have historical roots in BLUE (fundamentalist/orthodox), and the world religions' scriptures are BLUE and RED/BLUE, the stage of humanity during the era when the scriptures were written.  The Leviticus rules-for-conduct DaveF just cited are a good example in the JudeoChristian BLUE rules.

    13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

    Shahak's book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel offered many quotes from Jewish religious authorities advising on God's instructions as to how the Jewish and non-Jewish are to relate.  It isn't pretty.   Tom has brought forward several from Islam.

    BLUE finds meaning, stability and purpose in adhering tightly to a belief structure and following the rules of conduct to the letter.  "Truth" is what scripture says.  Beliefs are accepted as a package in their entirety without critical analysis.  Obeying the 10 Commandments, literal belief in scriptural stories and admonitions, the subservience of wives to husbands and children to parents, prohibitions against fornication, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, the universe was created in 6 days, etc.

    There are big regional differences in average developmental stage.  In general, education and conscious refection on life-experience advance developmental stage.  In rural Virginia, there are a lot of poorly educated "rednecks" (RED/BLUE).  But in Charlottesville, a university town, ORANGE, GREEN and higher predominate.  Young people from rural areas who begin to suspect that they are gay, move to Charlottesville.

    One SD writer offered the following population meme distribution estimates:

    The Iranian and Iraqi physicians I have worked with are ORANGE and GREEN.  They fit in well to a pluralistic American university town. 

    But I also understand that the ME is generally very RED/BLUE.  As Tom points out, it does seem reasonable to suspect that Muslim immigrants will disproportionately be fundamentalist in thinking and may seek to bring their brand of "truth" to countries they move too.  And RED/BLUE generally endorses killing for God's kingdom when instructed to by scripture.

    Similarly, much of the Jewish – Arab conflict can be framed in light of the BLUE thinking of the region by both sides.  Again, read of the contempt that the orthodox (BLUE) Jewish teachers hold for the non-Jewish. It is as profound as the contempt that the BLUE Muslim hold for the non-Muslim.  To the degree that BLUE holds sway, humanity is in trouble.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 3:54pm

    Reply to #8

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    blue & green & triggers

    SP-

    Yes, I agree with your colorful analysis.

    And I also think I was just a bit triggered by a semi-victory-lap finger-pointing at the bad BLUE bits in one holy book, while completely ignoring the fact that the "other" holy book says the same freaking thing!

    The emphasis needs to be on the BLUE behavior, not on the BLUE bits of the non-favored holy book.  Unless of course your own holy book has no BLUE bits in it, in which case the finger-pointing can start now.  Taoists, I'm talking to you!

    Point about BLUE immigrants arriving wielding their own holy book at odds with our own equally popular holy book (with its own BLUE bits) being a potential source for trouble is absolutely not lost on me, and I'm in complete agreement.

    That said, the fortunately-now-deceased perp wasn't an immigrant, he was born in New York.

    Again, I believe that nobody shoots that many gay men unless there's a very specific issue going on.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 5:15pm

    Reply to #8

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 836

    Sand , what are those other colors?

    beige? purple? orange? yellow? turquoise?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 7:07pm

    #9

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Recommended reading

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 9:17pm

    Reply to #8

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    So how are those "bits" acted upon today

    Dave wrote:

    And I also think I was just a bit triggered by a semi-victory-lap finger-pointing at the bad BLUE bits in one holy book, while completely ignoring the fact that the "other" holy book says the same freaking thing!

    The emphasis needs to be on the BLUE behavior, not on the BLUE bits of the non-favored holy book.

    Both Muslims and Christians are responsible for interpreting their scriptures and acting on them in daily life.  Both groups, if asked, would say that God has gradually revealed truth to them and that the truth that has been revealed most recently can cause a reinterpretation of past truths when people were more primitive.  Muslim scholars call this abrogation (the most recent Koranic verses overrule the earlier verses whenever there is a conflict). Christian scholars call it progressive revelation (such as when Jesus said, "You have heard it said, 'Hate your enemies.' But I say to you, 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.'").

    So, Dave, what behaviors do you see coming out of the Muslim and Christian communities around the world?  Do you see Christians throwing homosexuals off of roofs?  Do you see any nation states claiming the Bible is the law of their land executing homosexuals as official judicial action (as is done in Iran, Saudi)?  Do you hear leading Christian scholars in leading universities and seminaries advocating the execution of adulterers and homosexuals, and praising those who do?  You don't because Christians, by and large (not counting the less than 200 kooks at Westboro Baptist Church), have reinterpreted those Leviticus passages you so helpfully provided in the light of the life and words of Jesus.  Muslims, however, find the tolerant, peaceful parts in the very beginning of the Koran (from Mohammed's early career) and the militant, violent, intolerant parts after that, and they believe those later verses overrule the earlier tolerant verses.

    I agree.  Let's keep focusing on the behavior of all peoples. But let's don't disregard what Muslim fundamentalists say are their motives and Koranic guides when they do engage in mass murder.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 9:53pm

    Reply to #8
    Danny Cooper

    Danny Cooper

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 30 2011

    Posts: 4

    Old Testament compared to Koran

    I will add that it really helps to understand what the Church and the New Testament has been consistently clear about for 2,000 years regarding the Old Testament. The Old Testament itself described its covenant with the Jewish people, and how that covenant would be fulfilled. The New Testament describes how then Jesus came and himself said that he fulfilled the covenant, as predicted, and that the new covenant is what binds Christians. The old covenant had a great deal of harsh law and action, which had its purposes, which you can look up on your own if you're that curious about it. But it is important to understand the context, as explained throughout both the Old and New Testament, and which has been consistently interpreted for 2,000 years.

    Islam, as far as I know, does not have a similar stepping stone to a covenant that is completely about love. Compare the founders of the two religions. I think you know some of the stories of Jesus. Mohammad, “the perfect man” to be imitated by all muslims, had multiple wives, the youngest of which was six. The marriage was consummated when she was nine. That is pedophilia, promoted by example by the perfect man. He participated in and oversaw slaughter of hundreds and thousands of innocents, as documented in Islam's writings. Muslims who do these things today are not being extreme. They are simply following the example of their founder. Muslims who denounce these acts (the majority of muslims) don’t truly understand their religion.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 10:07pm

    #10

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    Spiral Dynamic Summary Page

    I'm putting a summary page here as this has been a wonderful cognitive framework for me for making sense out of the world.

    A Meme is a "paradigm" world view.  They tend to move in stages (similar to Piaget's cognitive developmental stages).  But not always.

    The lowest Memes are pretty much only seen in pre-school classes and very primitive peoples.

    Nobody is all one Meme.  Our thinking at any given time is spread out among several yet the center-of-gravity can be described as being in one meme.

    Development from one meme to another, when moving quickly, takes 5 years or more.

    Here is an introduction to the Spiral Dynamics model of Memes. (a source, start on slide 12; and here)

    Memes are the various gestalt / world-view / psycho-social developmental stages.  Every religion can be "done" from every meme.  Difference between memes are far more profound than differences between religions.

    RED Meme

    General description  Social structures arraigned around warlords who hold power over vassals through superior force;  “Lord of the Flies.”  Darth Vader.  Villains in super-hero movies.  Impulsive; little thought for the future.  Morality:  If one has the power to dominate, it is “right” to do so.  “Might makes right.”  Casual violence and sex as tools for intimidation and domination and reward for being strong. Views others as predators or prey.  Respects others to the degree that they can hurt him.  Warlord will demand vassals fight to expand warlord’s power base.  Seen in the USA now in inner city and prison gangs.  Ethno(socio)centric tribe.  RED is unmoved by empathy and does not embrace basic moral principles or law.  The desires of the warlord are the highest authority.  Dominant morality of humanity in millennia past.

    Religious manifestations:  God is a kickass warlord, can be enraged and lashes out with supernatural retribution–lightning, floods, pillar of salt. God calls the loyal to expand His Kingdom through violence.  Grants the faithful a mighty sword to “spill the blood” of evil out-group (heathens, gentiles, infidels) which are to be shown-no-mercy.  Feels “right” about killing, raping, plundering, torturing, and burning villages provided it is done “for God.”  Crusades, Jihads. Extermination of out-groups. Biblical cruelty.

    BLUE

    General:  Law and order.  Rules of morality.  Ten Commandments.  Magna Carta.  Military codes of conduct; Rules. Righteousness. “Truth” found in scripture.  The foundation of law.  Many military and LEOs begin here.  BLUE LEOs are necessary to contain the chaos and lawlessness of RED.  Honorable combat between soldiers.  Follows correct procedure, obeys legitimate authority and lawful orders.  Regards the law as higher authority than the desires of an individual leader.  An insightful BLUE may refuse to follow an unconstitutional or immoral order. Views others as righteous or sinners.  The BLUE meme usually overlaps with a cognitive development level called mythic-membership, where loyalty and identity is subsumed in a mythic group (such as a religion, creed, nationality or club).  Embraces and internalizes moral code, behaves honorably, keeps his word.  Strongly developed conscience feels shame when caught lying or cheating.

    Religious:  God/Scriptures/Prophets give us the rules to live by and tell us what is “True.”  Abiding by the rules exactly pleases God; Righteousness. “Truth” found in scripture. Orthodox and fundamentalist religious thinking.  Understanding of the physical universe based in scripture (such as the world was created in 7 days).

    ORANGE

    General:  Concerned with achievement, getting ahead; accomplishment; status; material wealth.  Inventing the next big thing.  Going down in history. Getting a Ph.D., Black Belt, Nobel Prize, doctors, lawyers, CEOs, setting records, Ivy league diploma.  Leadership. Public office. “Truth” comes from Science.  Strategic thinking, seeks advantage to get ahead.  Sees others as winners and losers.  The TV game show:  Survivor.  Stock investment newsletters. Takes college courses.  Morality: May cheat or lie if sure it can be kept secret. Stretches rules for advantage, but knows that a reputation as unethical impairs business and political opportunities.  Emerged from BLUE, and "healthy ORANGE" has a conscience and feels shame when caught lying.  Moves towards world-centric viewpoint generally.  May find advantage by covertly aligning with secret mutually supportive mythic group for power and profit.

    Religious:  Churches as investment syndicates.  Spreading influence.  Money and membership numbers growing.  Holding leadership / rank in a church organization.  Religious membership as a business, economic, political network.  Scientific explanations of physical world supplant religious myths.

    GREEN

    The sensitive person.  Empathy and caring.  Human bond.  Egalitarian.  Includes everyone.   The golden rule.  “My religion is simple:  Kindness”.  Views others as “sensitive” or “insensitive.”   Values each person’s perspective equally.  Morality: Aware that lying destroys trust and intimacy.  Will not deceive due to the destructive impact on a relationship.  May view “Truth” as an intuitive perception of what is right (“listening to still small voice of God”) or embrace a philosophy/religion that is egalitarian.  Mistakenly believes that others share this sensitive and egalitarian outlook — seriously misunderstanding them. 

    Religious:  Religion shows us how to be kind to everyone, including the elderly, powerless, sinners. Gives to homeless shelter, soup kitchens.  Religion as social activism for the poor.  God “chooses” everyone.  All races and religions are “God’s people.” World-centric. Parables: The Good Samaritan, The Woman at the Well. The Golden Rule.

    YELLOW

    General:  Able to see each of the memes as developmental stages and assess the limitations of each.  Perspectives understood to be relative, but ranks perspectives by effectiveness, flexibility and accuracy.  Ecologically oriented.  Watches the flow of resources, people, thinking, monetary systems, social movements.  (Flexflow)

    Religious:  Religious experience often in nature. Wishes to permit each group to express itself but not allow any one group to dominate the whole.  (Amish community does not make laws for the Catholic community or secular academic community, etc.)

    And one example:  The issue of truth telling vs lying

    RED:  Hell yes.  I lie when every it offers me advantage.  If you are stupid enough to fall for the lie, you deserve to be taken.

    BLUE:  I tell the truth because the Lord tells me to in the holy scripture.

    ORANGE:  I am tempted to lie sometimes, but being discovered as a liar is really damaging to my reputation and makes further dealings more difficult as they no longer trust me.  All in all, lying is bad for business and my career.

    GREEN:  Lying violates our relationship.  How can I be open in trust and intimacy with you if I am lying?  No. I will tell the truth.

    YELLOW:  Telling the truth is by far the best practice in general.  (But occasionally a lie may serve a higher goal and may be necessary.)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2016 - 11:32pm

    #11

    KennethPollinger

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 22 2010

    Posts: 616

    700 years of Inquisition

    followed by Georgetown University Jesuits selling Blacks for $$$$$.  Priestly/Minister/Rabbi pedophilia. Scamming BIG TIME tele-evangelists, sucking up the $$$$.  We can compare the individual religious founders and then we can also compare their founding institutions' behavior, over time. Not a pretty picture, methinks.

    I wonder how many of us have actually read the Koran and Old Testament right through to the end?? And does it matter anyway?

    And then the varied interpretations?  And how many selectively pick and choose what supports their own agenda?  Will it ever end.  Probably not.  At least we have something to write about and debate.  So, finally, where is TRUTH?  I personally see an infinite number of people each having his/her individualized truth, with small t. 

    Which seems a lot like our debates about the financialization of the world, especially the ENDGAME. Each has his/her global analysis and of course, we know who is right, right?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 2:12am

    #12
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 316

    Maybe just a homicidal maniac?

    Turns out the lunatic that massacred 50 innocents spent alot of time at the nightclub over the last 3 years,He also engaged in gay dating apps according to the Orlando Sentinel.Was especially fond of beating up women as well.Maybe not that deep,obsessed with law enforcement,taunting co-workers etc.Conspiracy?Maybe not.50 lives that mattered,yes….

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 4:44am

    Reply to #8

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    one funeral at a time

    If a bunch of BLUE people are quoting the bad bits from their Holy Scripture, I agree, we need to pay attention.  In some sense, all these Holy Scriptures have a collection of things in them that are sure to please somebody.  You like love, healing the sick, turning the other cheek?  Sure, we've got some of that.  You prefer divine retribution and the annihilation of entire citites, and passages that explicitly justify you killing people who make you uncomfortable?  Yep, got that too.  Something for everybody – for every color in SP's rainbow.  It just depends on what you want to focus on.

    So ultimately the issue is about you, not about the scripture itself.

    Fifty years ago, Westboro Baptists were mainstream.  Cops used to bust gay bars.  Now we have some cops who are openly gay, and Westboro Baptists are seen as kooks.  Holy Scripture is unchanged.  Its amazing what fifty years and a whole lot of "re-interpretation" will bring you.  To paraphrase Max Planck, "mainstream religion gets kinder, more loving, and more tolerant one funeral at a time."  Thank Heaven.

    One hopes the news of this success will make it to the places where the followers of Islam remain mostly BLUE, and they will follow our example.  Christianity is definitely showing the way: we can see for ourselves that it IS possible for a group of people that engaged in terrible behavior in the name of that faith to reform and rise above the sum of their former bad acts.  I think Jesus would be proud of how far Christianity has come even over the last fifty years.  I mean, look at the Pope.  He's even addressed the whole Pedophile Priest issue!

    But trumpeting one book over another?  Hubris.  Given the sins committed by people following explicit instructions from  Our Holy Scripture down through the millenia, I say "Let he whose book has no evil bits in it – let him cast the first stone."

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 2:25pm

    Reply to #11
    Danny Cooper

    Danny Cooper

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 30 2011

    Posts: 4

    Can we not separate what the

    Can we not separate what the Church (that was founded by Jesus) teaches and what the Church’s members do? We have had and will continue to have bad lay people, bad priests, bad bishops and bad popes. Their (and everyone’s, since we all fail to live perfectly) anti-Christian behavior has been condemned by the Church, and the evil of these many people was committed while official Church doctrine remained consistent for 2,000 years. Doctrine has not been changed or deleted; the Church doesn’t even have the authority to do that (although Protestant churches do, which, yes, is part of why we have hundreds of them). That doctrine is understood to be the universal Truth, which cannot change. A world where each individual holds their own individualized truth is worrisome. This is moral relativism. First, what is that understanding of the universe grounded on? Second, moral relativism condones evil and selfish behavior (I imagine we have many relativists in the banking world). If Jack’s truth is that other humans are not worthy of dignity or respect, who are you to say that Jack shouldn’t follow his truth and commit whatever evil he wishes to?

    I don’t wish to get into a religious or spiritual debate, as that could go on forever, and I did that enough in my years as an agnostic and devout atheist. I respect anyone who is curious about trying to better understand the universe around them. I understand the difficulty of getting on board with religion. It took me a very long time. And I agree with Kenneth when he remarked that few people have read these books. Not only that, who has spent time understanding the context and the official doctrinal teachings? And who disagrees with what the Church actually teaches and not what they believe the Church teaches? If organized religion really turns you off, then I suggest seeking understanding of natural law. Aristotle’s philosophical writings on natural law and morality are a place to begin.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 3:50pm

    Reply to #11

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 836

    My reply gave an anecdotal counter example

    … but was deleted, it seems.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 4:32pm

    #13

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    genesis

    dan9c-

    Well the Genesis of my participation in this thread was when I read Tom's post entitled:

    Islamic law and scholars agree: homosexuals must be killed

    And I just wanted to point out, Our Holy Scripture says the exact same thing.  Thankfully it has been very generously reinterpreted (i.e. the bits that say "kill gay people" are now being ignored, such joy) in recent years so that gay people can actually meet in clubs without getting raided by the police, or thrown in jail for having sex, which is awfully convenient if either you, your friends, or your children happen to be gay and are just trying to live life like everyone else.  "Hey pal, the Bible said to kill you and we're only throwing you in jail.  We're actually being nice here."  That's how it used to be, you know.

    Do Islamic countries put gay people to death?  Some do, as it turns out, with ISIS seemingly the most enthusiastic enforcer.  Tom's point about that was entirely accurate.  Thank heavens we don't have ridiculous people here who actually read our Holy Bible and then decide to follow it down to the letter.  Anymore, I mean.  Except for the kooks at Westboro Baptist.  And the occasional guest on Fox.  Oh well, nothing's perfect.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/

    If Jack’s truth is that other humans are not worthy of dignity or respect, who are you to say that Jack shouldn’t follow his truth and commit whatever evil he wishes to?

    Oh that's an easy one.  You start with Free Will – meaning everyone deserves to pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness according to their own lights – and as long as what they do doesn't impinge on your free will or anyone else's, they should be allowed to do it.  Its kind of a golden rule: let someone else live their life, because that's what you'd like them to do for you also.

    Of course if Jack impinges on someone else's free will – well that's where the rules come in.  Society gets to determine that.

    We're put on earth to have a human experience, and we get to set the rules down here according to our best idea of right and wrong.  Its part of the fun of being here; figuring out what's right and what's wrong, what works and what doesn't.

    I believe that more freedom is better, and leads to better outcomes.  Not because the Bible says so (that's just an Appeal to Authority fallacy), but because it allows everyone as much freedom as possible to experience life here on Earth.  Less potential for arbitrary conflict because of someone's stupid rule (can't eat pork – can't eat beef – can't eat seafood, etc) means more freedom to experience life and find out for yourself what works and what doesn't.

    Experience is the best teacher.  Being forced to live according to someone else's stupid rule: a distant second-best.

    I'm not a libertarian, or an atheist, or a Godless Communist, or a moral relativist.  I don't fit neatly into any particular box.  I'm just me; my philosophy is, live and let live, as best you can.

    You did ask.  🙂

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 6:20pm

    Reply to #13

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 836

    Dave, which meme is ideal?

    You said, for example, “that’ssjust an appeal to authority fallacy.” Now, if we were talking logic, I’d agree that appeal to authority is a fallacy. But for blue meme, isn’t appeal to authority spot on?
    If you are a kid growing up in a tough RED/BEIGE neighborhood, wouldn’t appeal to authority be a good idea?

    Let’s try to think in and through all memes, even if we aren’t yellow.

    In response to the story of Jack, you said, “oh, that’s an easy one. You start with (green meme) and then…”

    But everyone doesn’t start with green meme. Some people start in violently abusive homes, or in a home that has serious BEIGE issues.

    Let me posit a different way of looking at things. Consider the owner of a collapsing mine who simply refused to integrate MSHA required safety principles for profit’s sake? Is he any less violent than the Orlando shooter? Or consider all the people killed by Bayer opiate painkillers. Are they any less murderous?

    Do you think there could be a good reason for the scripture, “Thou shalt not permit a pharmacist/poisoner/witch to live” (translation difficulties aside, denoted by multiple translations).

    Could a Green see their way to agreeing?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 6:51pm

    Reply to #13
    Danny Cooper

    Danny Cooper

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 30 2011

    Posts: 4

    Didn't think I'd ever have a spiritual discussion here!

    Hi Dave,

    Regarding your first point – I responded to this when I discussed the consistently interpreted context of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament still possesses truth, but it is helpful to understand the book as a documentation of the old covenant(s) with the Jewish people during a very different time in history. It itself explains that the purpose was to keep the Jewish people surviving and to reveal God and his plan over time. We also guide a 3-year old differently than we guide a 13-year old. The Old Testament details the laws that were handed to the Jewish people to maintain social structure to help them survive so that God could reveal himself the way that he planned to.  Some of these laws were very harsh, especially from our modern point of view. But they were not radical in those times.

    Just for fun – pretend for a minute that that this Bible God is real and that everything in the book is real. We don’t know his mind. If he truly is the omniscient, all-powerful god, then he can intervene and communicate however he pleases. He made everything, and he can take away anything and everything as he sees fit. He probably knows what is best, if he truly is the one.

    And as I said previously, the old covenant has been fulfilled and is done away with. This is a basic, foundational, defining aspect of Christianity.

    I’m with you on the points on Islam.

    Regarding Jack and Free Will – I agree; free will is essential. But it is still complex. In a world of moral relativism, how do we decide when someone else’s free will (or rights, feelings, etc.) is infringed upon or damaged? If you think it’s OK to cheat on your wife because that’s your individual truth/morality, well, you didn’t physically hurt her…so is it also emotions and feelings that should be protected? You can think of many other similar scenarios in our daily lives where we can hurt each other.

    And then there’s the issue of hurting ourselves with our own free will, which could be a result of mental illness or simply a result of poor moral formation. There are plenty of people in the world with all kinds of unnatural, awful fetishes and desires. Many people have the desire to eat other people. And other people have the desire to be eaten by other people. This happens sometimes when they are able to connect, and I’m sure you heard about the high profile case in Germany a while back. In such a consensual act of cannibalism and murder, should we be supportive? If people want to have sexual relationships with animals or if they want to cut their own limbs off or starve themselves, should we be supportive because it is OK with their individual truth? No. Those things aren’t good for them (I’m very sorry if you disagree with this). We should try to help them live according to natural law (which includes not eating people, only attempting to procreate with other humans, etc.) because it provides the best opportunity for human flourishing. I’m not saying that we should force everyone to live by certain rules in the Bible. I’m saying that we can observe the natural order and morality around us, and recognize what is best for us. This does not make us less free. It helps us help ourselves and others, and helps to free us of our inclinations and temptations to do wrong.

    At some point we have to ask ourselves what is the point of being here. Just to live and let live? We can certainly flourish here on Earth and have a grand old time. What happens after that? If nothing happens to anyone after death, then our grand old time (and this entire universe) is truly brief and meaningless. What difference does it make if we behave like Gandhi or like Hitler? The end result is the same. Death, meaninglessness and emptiness. For everyone. For all of history. We can say that we make the most of our time here on Earth, but that is the equivalent of placing ourselves in the Matrix, pretending that our lives have meaning just because—for a  while—we can see, hear, smell, taste, feel and think. Many people are comfortable with living and someday dying this way. It sounds like you are, and I’m genuinely happy that you have peace. But I imagine you’re still curious to understand how everything might have gotten here in the first place. There had to be a creator for the creation, and it’s worth trying to seek him out if he really made all of this. Like I already said, I know that it’s easier said than done. If it so happens that there is life after death, then attaining that life seems ideal (and has many other benefits to life here on Earth, including purpose/meaning and peace). We should also be able to explain why we believe in life after death, if that is truly what we believe. Assuming it exists and that we’ll end up there is folly and dangerous. This is one reason why many of us choose to live in a purposeful universe rather than a meaningless universe.

    Excuse me if I don’t continue commenting on this. Just four or five years ago, I was still arguing the other side quite vehemently wherever I could. My goal is to follow that golden rule thing, and for me it means doing all of this every once in a while. At least we’re probably all on the same page with other big things in life! We wouldn’t be here otherwise.

    Michael – Sorry, I don’t know what happened to your comment. I never saw it and certainly did not flag anything.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 8:15pm

    Reply to #13

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    ideal memes

    MR-

    Which meme is ideal?  That's a great question.  I think most people have a "base operating place" while they venture into other areas as the mood/skill/need arises.  The best meme is the one where you're the most comfortable.

    If I were being attacked, I'd jump into RED because – I'd prefer to survive rather than die.   I guess that makes me not-GREEN.  I don't identify with SP's relatives at all.  And my feelings about the migrant issue in Europe also has me definitely not-GREEN.  However I'm not RED and I really don't like all of BLUE's rules, and ORANGE is completely non-spiritual and that certainly doesn't fit anymore, so what does that leave?

    As for your mine owner – in my world, if society said that these safety rules were the norm, and he failed to implement them and people died, he's responsible and deserves punishment.  Again, "free will" isn't a license to do whatever you want and/or fail to act and cause harm through negligence.  Its a guiding principle.  For instance: it supports religious freedom (as long as your religious practices don't involve harm to another), marriage freedom, drug legalization – the "personal" bits of the libertarian philosophy.  State shouldn't intrude in anything personal.

    You said, for example, “that's just an appeal to authority fallacy." Now, if we were talking logic, I'd agree that appeal to authority is a fallacy. But for blue meme, isn't appeal to authority spot on?

    Hmm I think you made a good point.  Its a logical fallacy in this sense only: "because the Bible says this is ok, the action I am about to take is therefore a moral act."  The alleged authority is the Bible, and we've already determined that the Bible contains bad bits that are distinctly immoral that really need to be ignored – er, I mean, "re-interpreted."  And so you're right back to trusting yourself again.  Which bits should I follow and which should I ignore?

    But from the standpoint of BLUE looking for a code to follow, authority isn't a fallacy, its helpful.  Soldiers need this, so do police, so they get through the day without getting shot.  "Law says X" and so you enforce it, with some discretion.   ROE says this, and that lets you shoot or not shoot, giving responsibility to whomever crafted the ROE.  So maybe – meme color you spend most of your time in depends on your job, to some degree.

    I've often found that people's professions end up really transforming them over time.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 9:39pm

    Reply to #13

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    spiritual discussions

    dan9c-

    Well I'm enjoying the discussion, even if you aren't.  🙂  I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from, but you might get more by the end.

    The Old Testament details the laws that were handed to the Jewish people to maintain social structure to help them survive so that God could reveal himself the way that he planned to.  Some of these laws were very harsh, especially from our modern point of view. But they were not radical in those times.

    Problem is, a metric crapload of people today don't make the careful distinctions you do about history and convenents, etc.  They believe every word in the Holy Scripture is literally the Word of God.  Can you see how this might be problematic?  That's my only issue.  I have no problem with people like you who see the OT as an outdated rulebook.  Its the ones that want to apply this outdated rulebook today that disturb me.

    In a world of moral relativism, how do we decide when someone else’s free will (or rights, feelings, etc.) is infringed upon or damaged?

    That's pretty simple too.  Its consensus of society.  We figure it out together, based on how we feel about the issue.  We're guided by our collective wisdom, and we do our best to sort it out.  We don't need some book to tell us how we (collectively) feel about it.  But if both people consent, we give them the benefit of the doubt.  That's how I'd do it.

    If you think it’s OK to cheat on your wife because that’s your individual truth/morality, well, you didn’t physically hurt her…so is it also emotions and feelings that should be protected?

    Look, when two people get together, they form an agreement.  If the agreement is, "no cheating" then if you cheat, you've broken the agreement.  Breaking an agreement always has consequences.  Bible says: consequence for breaking this agreement (was) death.  We don't need to use that same consequence today.  And, just maybe, the consequence can be determined between just those two people without involving book or Deity or any outside authority at all.  Its just between them.  That would be my suggestion.  We should be able to figure out for ourselves how bad someone else's action makes us feel, and what the appropriate punishment might be.  Shouldn't we?

    There are plenty of people in the world with all kinds of unnatural, awful fetishes and desires. Many people have the desire to eat other people. And other people have the desire to be eaten by other people.

    Really.  You're going to rest your argument on consensual cannibalism?  And you've noticed that many people want to eat other people?  You live in a different world from me.  I haven't run into any people like that.  The oddest request I ever got was that someone wanted me to punch them.  I declined.  I didn't try and rush them into counseling or arrest them or otherwise interfere with their life.  They wanted to be hit.  I didn't ask why, I didn't moralize, I just declined.  I assumed they had their reasons; they had their life track, and I had mine.

    But the point is still important.  It's clear that you feel the need to control other people's fetishes.  They make you uncomfortable, and your natural response is to crack down.  For their own good, of course.  But…who defines awful?  Some people enjoy S&M.  Is that awful?  Who says so?  How about toe sucking/foot fetishists?  Is that awful too?  Well, if you don't wash first…but there are people who like that too.  Who decides what's an awful fetish and what's not?  You're signing up to be the Arbiter of Awful?

    I’m saying that we can observe the natural order and morality around us, and recognize what is best for us. This does not make us less free. It helps us help ourselves and others, and helps to free us of our inclinations and temptations to do wrong.

    Sure, recognizing what is best for ourselves is the essence of our journey according to our free will.   We learn what's best for us through experience.  (And some people need a whole lot of experiences before they finally get it).  On the other hand, "recognizing" what's best for someone else is the essence of annoying paternal hubris, and ultimately that robs them of essential life experience.

    "Observing the natural order" is code for "preventing others from doing anything that makes me feel uncomfortable."  It justifies removing someone else's free will simply because you believe you know better.  That's appropriate during childhood, for the safety of the child, but at some point, people need to experience life without someone else deciding what's good for them.  And if you haven't walked a mile in their shoes, just maybe you don't really have the answer, even though you've "observed the natural order" and have determined they have an awful fetish or self-destructive impulse that needs to be controlled.

    Some people have to try drugs out to figure out they're not good.  Some people don't need this.  Who are you to dictate their life path for them?  You think you are that wise?  Maybe there's more going on here than you know.  I have seen so many people really learn a lesson only when they've gone through a very difficult experience; had I been able to paternalistically "save" them from having that experience, I would have been robbing them of an essential life lesson that ultimately made them a better person.

    At some point we have to ask ourselves what is the point of being here.

    We've all signed up for the human experience.  We're here to figure out right, wrong, act, experience consequence, gain experience, and everything in between.  That's what I believe.  After death – I believe we come back to have another go.  To take another class in another body, learn some more, and eventually, to master ourselves and the human experience.  And we've volunteered for all of it because as a consciousness (soul?) independent of the body, we want to incorporate here and engage because we can learn things here that we cannot learn elsewhere.

    But that's just my belief system.  That's why free will is so important to me.  Without it, we can't learn nearly as much.  Sometimes we need to get punched in the face a few times before you learn that keeping your hands raised is important.

    There is no substitute for genuine experience.  In my belief system anyway.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 9:50pm

    Reply to #13

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 836

    I think you just got to my point, which was...

    … that we actually are all memes. So is our society. Yes, our society is more of one meme than another, probably for a very good reason.
    I also think that even ancient societies were actually all memes. Even the primitive Ecuadoran Waudani, who acted red, and spend a large fraction of their effort in beige, still experienced blue, purple, DEFINITELY yellow…

    So if they were all memes, I surmise that so were the people and societies through history.

    And so is the Bible all memes. complete with revelation for all memes. So no, I don’t throw out the distasteful parts and say they are wrong; I find them distasteful because of me, But I consider that there may be wisdom there that I don’t understand. There may be a reason that homosexuality is so strongly condemned.

    And just because I have Christian principles that work against me ever carrying out the punishment, doesn’t make me less aware that #this is strongly condemned#.

    Does that make me a risk in other peoples’ books? Maybe. But the Christian PATH is quite green, even if the interpretation is turquoise and the hatred of sin is blue and the determination and bullheadedness is almost red.

    Oh, and I’m sorry if I disturb you, but I am one of those people. I probably have my reasons.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2016 - 10:26pm

    Reply to #13

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    this is strongly condemned

    MR-

    90% of what you do doesn't disturb me at all.  True Christians who are forgiving, loving, kind, and seek to emulate the Christ have my admiration and respect.

    However, condemning someone (did Jesus condemn anyone?  I thought he was into forgiving) who is just acting according to their inner nature and who isn't harming anyone else – that actually does cause damage, whether you realize it or not.  If your child is gay, your condemnation and projection of shame will cause a very great deal of damage to your child, because they can no more control their inner nature than you can.

    Quick question: did you choose the "straight lifestyle?"

    And just because I have Christian principles that work against me ever carrying out the punishment, doesn't make me less aware that #this is strongly condemned#.

    Yes, #strongly condemned# by some writer 3000 years ago writing down rules for a very different society, as dan9c has pointed out.

    Maybe they needed more people desperately, and so even the gay men had to suck it up, take a wife, have sex twice and pop out two babies.  Wife would have been quite frustrated (and I've definitely seen that particular story play out), but what can you do?  Book says you can't be gay or you're dead.

    Likely this particular OT condemnation has negative value in an already-overpopulated world.  Do you think we should all still be fruitful and multiply too?

    Did you ever consider that the more gay people we have, the lower the rate of population growth?

    Perhaps we should be guided less on what was written 3000 years ago for one tribe of humans in a specific  circumstance, and more on what applies to us in our current situation today.

    It's a thought anyway.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 12:22am

    #14

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Was the Orlando mass shooting a false flag attack?

    Was the Orlando mass shooting a false flag attack? (Wake up world)
    http://wakeup-world.com/2016/06/15/orlando-mass-shooting-a-false-flag-attack/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 2:08am

    Reply to #13

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 836

    Straight is much more than homo/hetero

    Dave, can you really call a guy who gets lap dances regularly, straight? At least by the definition given by Christ, no. So straight is far more than hetero/homo.
    To answer your question, initially, I was just a child, neither straight or not. Then, when I was a kid, someone laid out a whole bunch of porn in a streambed, where kids like me like to stand and watch the stream, right below a bridge.

    I was hooked. For maybe ten years, I headed deeper into that: literature, pictures, fantasies, computer games, and more. About that time, I had a roommate who told how he was freed from all that through confession. I realized that I, too, needed to do that, and I did.

    (The condemnation isn’t of the person, but of the sin. Jesus did no less.)

    Now, two parallel stories: on the one side, I battled this for seven years and lost, repeatedly trying again, failing, and returning to the confessional, until in prayer G-d told me, “this is too much for you, I’m taking it away”. And He did. Other parallel story: G-d opened a conversation with me. About that time, I prayed and asked him to find me a wife who would lead me to Him, and whom I would lead to Him. He did exactly that. Having options to seek comfort elsewhere, I specifically saw it as other, unknowns that themselves might be no better or worse than what I already had, but this having the extra blessing of G-d’s grace on it. So I continually chose “straight”, to this day.

    Regarding the nature of sex, it seemed to me that the best operator practices involved reverse engineering the system, and seeing what had been designed. Moreover, the user manual seemed to indicate the same. So again, I consciously chose to go in that direction, and not nurture other inclinations –which inclinations I think many people have at some level.

    So to answer your question: early on, no. Later, yes. And having been there, done that, I can say that I did not find it damaging to learn that G-d found my natural inclinations extremely sin#ul. In fnct, there was a part of me that agreed with the judgement from the first.It’s like when a basketball coach tells a ten year old kid he doesn’t know how to shoot. The kid has been missing shots left and right, and the coach is more than willing to help the kid get it right, so there’s absolutely no damage to the coach tellin’ it like it is.

    Regarding your social engineering postulates, I think you are missing something: the nature of the coming population curve. Being fruitful and multiplying is no less important before and during a population crash. In fact, seeing the popUation crash of the passenger pigeon or the Michigan Locust, I’d say it is especially important then. But maybe I’m wrong. Regardless, I was allowed from being locked into red meme, into the full range of memes through the spiritual gift of what happened, and I don’t lightly toss that away.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 4:29am

    #15

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    A Skeptical Take on the Orlando Shooting (PCR)

    A Skeptical Take On The Orlando Shooting (Paul Craig Roberts)

    [quote]Some readers have asked for my take on the Orlando Shooting.

    I don’t have one. Let’s see if together we can form a reasonable view.

    Let’s start with the basic first question. Before there can be a murder declared, there must be a body. Has anyone seen on TV or in newspapers pictures of dead bodies? Bodies should be readily available if the reports are correct that fifty people were killed and 50 or more were wounded and in hospital.

    I cannot bear the presstitute TV and print media. These are full-time propaganda organizations. Hopefully, some of you hold your nose and watch the news and can fill in the spaces. Has anything we have been told been confirmed by any real evidence?

    Initially, I saw a CNN newscast and a RT report. The reports were heavy with verbiage of blood being all over the place, but the only visual evidence offered were three people, supposedly injured, being helped, not by medics or first responders, but by ordinary folks. A couple of people were helping a guy with tattoos in place of a shirt, but there was no sign of blood. Several people were helping people in police uniforms to carry a person who they dumped in the back of a pickup truck, not in the cab. About 6 people were carrying a person stretched out prone (no stretcher) down a street.

    There was no blood and it looked like a crisis acting performance. Why prone? Is an injured person really able to keep his body stiff so that he can be carried along prone parallel to the ground? Where are they taking him? Is this just a camera walk-by? http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-witness-sot.cnn/video/playlists/orlando-nightclub-shooting/ What has become of the protocol that untrained people are not to attempt to help injured people? When police arrive at a scene, they usually run off bystanders, not recruit them to assist their activities or allow them to carry away the wounded and dead.

    Readers have noticed that the visual evidence does not match the verbal reports. Readers report that Fox “News” and MSNBC repeatedly show the same footage described above of bystanders carrying supposedly injured victims whose facial expressions are completely unstressed and show no pain, fear, or blood.

    So has anyone seen any dead bodies? Any body bags? Any wounded taken to hospitals in ambulances? Any of the hospital wounded interviewed by TV reporters? Has any reporter checked with the morgue?

    Allegedly, people inside the massacre location made cell phone calls and texted. But no one took photos or videos? Are there no security cameras? No doormen to notice a heavily armed person enter?

    With 50 people killed and 50 or more wounded and reports of oceans of blood, there should be plenty of evidence Have any of you seen any of it?

    As far as I know, dead bodies, other than those of the perpetrators themselves, seldom if ever emerge from the terrorist attacks. No dead bodies materialized from the Paris attacks except those of the alleged perpetrators. No dead bodies ever emerged from the Sandy Hook shootings. The only dead bodies I recall from the San Bernardino shooting were the husband-and-wife-alleged-perpetrators, and their hands were handcuffed behind their backs. Do police handcuff dead people who the police have shot to pieces? I don’t remember dead bodies from Brussels, just reports of dead bodies.

    One could say that the media is averse to invading the privacy of dead people and their relatives by showing dead bodies, or that the media doesn’t want to show gruesome scenes—except for the videos of Muslim terrorists cutting off people’s heads. But by now the unanswered questions from the various shootings have created so much skepticism that a person would think the media would provide corroborative evidence for the official claims.

    Maybe they have. As I admit, I don’t watch the presstitute news.

    In order to shoot 100 people, the principal weapon allegedly used, an AR-15, would have had to have been reloaded several times, a procedure that takes enough time for people to rush the shooter and overpower him.

    Is it possible for one person to shoot 100 people successfully but not be able to shoot even one cop when police appear? Remember the Charlie Hebdo event. The two killers were highly professional when they wiped out the magazine staff and a policeman in the street, but later when confronted by police they were so hapless and incompetent as to suggest that they were not the same people. Remember the San Bernardino shootings. Three eyewitnesses said that the shooters were three muscular males dressed in black, not a husband and diminutive wife with a new baby.

    What is most troublesome about these shootings is that the story seems already prepared by the government and is immediately set. We are fed the story before there is time for investigation by government or media. The media never investigate. The media just repeat the government’s story over and over until it is set in everyone’s mind. Contrary evidence is just discarded.

    The alleged perpetrators are always killed, so we never hear from them. The only survivor of the various terrorisms is the younger Tsarnaev brother who has been held incommunicado. We have never heard directly from him.

    One might think that by now the US media would have at least a smidgen of skeptcism. After all, for the past 15 years we have wasted trillions of dollars in wars in the Middle East based on lies that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. So why is the media willing to accept whatever the government says without any investigation or even raising a question?

    The chairman, co-chairman, and legal counsel of the official 9/11 Commission have said publicly that the commission was lied to by the US government, that information was withheld from the commission, and that the commission was “set up to fail.” If the government will not tell the truth to the 9/11 Commission, why would the government tell us peons the truth?

    It is not reporting merely to repeat the government’s claim. But that is all we get from the payroll jobs, unemployment and inflation reports to terrorism reports and claims of “Russian aggression.”

    Send your emails with URLs of news broadcasts showing dead bodies and other real evidence. Don’t send in your speculations. They might be interesting and on the mark, but what we are trying to do is to see if there is any real evidence in behalf of this latest story of mass slaughter inside a night club.

    It will be difficult, perhaps even impossible, to get any truth out of the Orlando shooting. Too many vocal and well organized interest groups have a strong stake in the government’s explanation. It comes to the aid of the anti-Muslim lobby and the Trump campaign which want Muslims kept out of the US and those here arrested and deported. It comes to the aid of the gun control lobby. It comes to the aid of the progressive-left that wants to normalize homosexual and transgendered people, thus the outpouring of sympathy for those shot in the homosexual night club. It comes to the aid of the spy industry and the police state that want no check on their activities. It comes to the aid of Washington’s murderous foreign policy—so what if we blow up Muslim children—look what they do to us when they grow up, which is what the Israelis say about the Palestinians. It comes to the aid of the neoconservatives and the military-security complex for whom wars against Muslims advance their agenda and fatten their pocketbook.

    All of these interests are far more powerful than the right of peons to know the truth.[/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 6:32am

    Reply to #13

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    human sexuality

    MR-

    Well I know of other experiences.  A woman I know married a man, who had very little interest in her sexually.  I got the sense they might have had sex once or twice.  They spent many years together, and even had a child, who happened to be female.   The husband wanted a boy, and so he was disappointed in how it all turned out.  The girl child felt unloved and unappreciated, and the wife felt neglected, unloved and unappreciated.  I'm not sure how the husband felt, but the marriage ultimately didn't last.  It didn't last because people were not being true to their inner nature.

    Human sexuality is a complicated affair.  We tend to boil things down to straight and gay, but reality is more diverse.  For those of us on the far ends of the straight-gay scale, life is easier because choice doesn't exist. Those in the middle of the scale are able to decide for themselves which path they'd like to take.  A guy named Kinsey wrote a book back in the 1950s about the subject – he was criticized for his sampling methods, but subsequent research that used better sampling methods found similar numbers.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

    That said – if you are man, and you are attracted to women, then you're straight.  If you aren't attracted to women, but you are attracted to men, then you're gay.  Lap dances and pornography present on a different axis.  So does S&M, overall sex drive, desire for multiple partners, and so on.

    So if you fall within the 10% of men who actually do have a choice about which path to take, that's great.  Straight is definitely easier.  Many are not this fortunate.  For them, its either live according to their inner nature and be condemned by people like you who take counsel from the OT 3000 year old guide-to-tribal-life, or live an inauthentic life suppressing how they really feel and hating themselves because everyone around them is shaming them through this condemnation.  "You aren't allowed to feel this way, sorry.  Go pray to have it fixed.  My ancient tribal guidebook says this is wrong, and I believe it to be true.  You are fortunate I don't kill you because that's what my guidebook says to do.  Its a good thing for you that Jesus came along or else you'd be in a body bag right now."

    Inner nature suppression via shaming leads to drug abuse, alcohol abuse, self-hatred, and suicide.  Suppression of one's inner nature by parents is very damaging.  Perhaps you will get to see this played out in your own life if you ever have a child.  We've talked about the 22 vets per day that kill themselves.  Well, 30% of gay teens attempt suicide by the time they're 15.  Damage done to our vets through the guilt they feel from what they've experienced during their time of service is lethal, and so is the damage we do to our own children through deliberate use of shame and condemnation.

    http://www.speakforthem.org/facts.html

    Warning signs:

    • Giving away prized possessions
    • Feelings of worthlessness or guilt
    • Change in eating habits and sleep patterns
    • Extreme personality changes
    • Aggressive, destructive, or defiant behavior
    • Neglect of personal appearance or hygiene
    • Increase in alcohol or drug consumption
    • Talking, writing or drawing about their own death
    • Withdrawing from family or friends

    So yes, its definitely your right to strongly condemn your children if their inner nature turns out to be gay.  By condemning them, you won't change their inner nature in the slightest – but there will definitely be consequences, and they will end up paying the price for you exercising your choice to shame and condemn.  You probably won't like the outcome either.

    As for being fruitful and mulitplying – really?  7 billion people isn't enough for you yet?  You're worried we might drop below 6 billion in 50 years, when the carrying capacity of earth w/o fossil fuels is maybe a billion so the helpful answer from that old guidebook is that we need to all stop using birth control, run out out and all have lots more children because our big worry is now a population decline?

    Some stuff from the ancient guidebook applies to modern life.  Some does not.  We should exercise a bit of common sense and separate the one from the other.

    My opinion, of course.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 10:16am

    Reply to #15

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    false flag cases

    I see two cases presented.  Case 1: it never happened and the whole thing was completely staged (and nobody was actually killed).  Case 2: it was executed by the usual suspects in the neocon community for the usual collection of reasons.

    Case 1 – completely staged – to me is simply not credible.  Simple math shows that the small gay community in this small southern town is so tightly inter-connected that everyone knows everyone.  Straight guy in one "infowars" interview spoke of his friend, a bartender, who actually saw the attack start, saw the man in front of him killed, and then was shot three times himself.  Its a small town, there were 100 killed and wounded, and many people in that town knows a victim either socially or personally.  No way this "didn't happen."   PCR is lost in a fog of his own creation.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_TRoOXFPxs

    Case 2 – the neocon elements did it for reasons of their own.  This could be true.  If the shooter really was closeted and really did use those chat apps, then we should start to see some people come forward who have actually met up with him.  If we don't see that happen, then I'll be more inclined to believe in this version of events.  Shooter was 29, and this allegedly wasn't his first rodeo.  So to speak.  No way a real closeted guy uses dating apps and never meets anyone.  No way he goes to this bar and never meets anyone.  And no way this small community doesn't gossip about who met who and "didn't you meet up with him once?"  Especially after this community-changing event.

    So if we don't get more contact stories of a more personal nature, I'll start to get suspicious.

    Is this radical islam?  Regular Islam meeting an unbalanced, closeted gay man?  A neocon patsy?  A secret neocon assault team supporting a neocon patsy?  Lots of people died here.  It would be good to figure out what went down, if only for the sake of the victims of this crime.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 11:57am

    #16

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    Duplicate post

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 12:10pm

    #17

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    Orlando: Information that should be available is not

    I have no specific information on whether the Orlando shooting incident happened as described, either.  I can tell however that information that should be readily available does not seem to be.

    Reminds me of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" (and here) which happened without photographic evidence of Russian military hardware in Ukraine.

    Or the downing of the MH-17 where the black box is shipped to the Netherlands for analysis but disappears there without analysis.

    Or the airplane that crashed into the pentagon, an area where it is reasonable to expect intensive video surveillance, but no identifiable photographs of an incoming plane are available.

    For those who still live within the matrix, simply being told that something is true is probably enough.  For those of us who know that myths are created to guide public thinking, we need confirming evidence.

    We make our own reality.

    -Dick Cheney

     

    Show me the body.

    -Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive" expressing an unwillingness to assume that Dr Kimble is dead after jumping from the dam until it is proven.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 12:14pm

    Reply to #15

    KugsCheese

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 821

    Re: False Flag Cases

    Case 3: The authorities are bumbling idiots and massage post event message to fit competency narrative.  

    However, I am leaning on Case 2 and expand to TPTB not just Neocons.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 12:19pm

    #18

    KugsCheese

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 821

    Ponder Orlando

    How does Omar himself, a security guard, have the sniper skill to take down 50 persons with one gun with no one tackling him.  No one had mace?   No one could throw heavy objects at him or crack him on head with bat etc.   I guess we are to believe everyone just laid down to die.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 3:42pm

    Reply to #18

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Run. Hide. Fight.

    I've found people are amazingly passive about their own safety, and most people are like a deer in the headlights when they are surprised by a lethal threat to their lives. However, we should wait a while to hear if anyone did try to fight back.  It may be that there were a few, but that they were wounded or killed in the process.  That being said it would take no skill at all for someone with an AR-15 to kill 49 and wound 53 on a dance floor crowded with 300 people.  The bullets from that rifle could easily penetrate one victim and hit another (or two) so that it would not even require 102 shots fired to hit 102 people.  I would guess he had somewhere close to 70 shots that hit someone, and that some of those hit two or more people before stopping.  Then we have to worry about how many people were hit by police bullets…

    I'm eagerly waiting for more detail on the actions of the off duty police officer who was working security for the club.  S/he apparently engaged the shooter very early on in the incident despite being outgunned by a mile (AR versus handgun).  Some have already criticized the officer for not dying or being wounded and suspect s/he was less than completely brave.  Then I want to hear the details about why the decision was taken not to storm the bathroom immediately where the shooter was barricaded.  There has been plenty of criticism of that too, but we lack the details.  Police doctrine since Columbine has been to engage active shooters as quickly as possible, but to contain and negotiate with gunmen who are barricaded inside somewhere.  I'm guessing the police initially treated the situation as an "active shooter" then changed tactics when he barricaded himself in the bathroom. But if he continued to shoot victims inside the bathroom that would've still been "active shooter."

    Personally, I avoid crowds and I never depend on someone else for my safety, even if police are on duty for security.  If I can't carry my gun in a certain location, then I won't go there.  I may not survive an attack like this but I'm not going down without a fight.

    Your family and friends might be willing to pay attention to this while Orlando is in the news:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcnA_Cq_Csk

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 4:02pm

    #19

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    I think the entire thing was

    I think the entire thing was staged. The witnesses were obviously crisis actors. This one has probably the worst acting out if all of them. I find it very difficult to believe that crisis actors would be sent to an actual scene of violence. Too much uncontrolled factors that could go wrong. Edit: if a single person had actually been shot then they wouldn't need crisis actors. Couple this with the complete lack if evidence for any dead bodies, just like all the other previous false flags, and it seems this is another sandy hook. 

    What makes me want to puke is all the emotional and in depth discussion about race relations and Islam this is getting even outside the msm. How we should respond with love. We should not respond with love, we should respond with anger and string up our leaders by their fingernails. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 4:43pm

    #20

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Sigh

    This collapsing Empire gig wears on a soul.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 5:00pm

    #21

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Good advice from THC...

    THC said,

    Personally, I avoid crowds and I never depend on someone else for my safety, even if police are on duty for security.  If I can't carry my gun in a certain location, then I won't go there.  I may not survive an attack like this but I'm not going down without a fight.

    If nothing else, this seems like good advice for anyone… don't spend too much time in, "gun free" zones.. because you aren't going to have any law abiding gun owners there to help you should TSHTF.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 5:17pm

    Reply to #18

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    thanks Tom

    Thanks for your professional assessment.  I too want to hear about the off-duty cop.  Handgun vs assault rifle seems like he'd have to have been lucky to prevail.  While the "club range" is easy for the rifle, hitting a target with a pistol seems much more problematic.  Presumably he was also concerned with hitting patrons too, while the shooter clearly felt no such restriction.

    I notice you aren't going off into "it never happened" and "they're all crisis actors" land with some of the other posters here.  Why is that?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 5:26pm

    #22

    KugsCheese

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 821

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-15/new-orlando-shooter-eyewitness-emergestestifies-5-people-were-involved-pulse-attack

    How did the others get away?   How long did it take for other police to come and surround building?    

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 5:57pm

    #23

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    So what are we at now for

    So what are we at now for phony events… Please feel free to add your own since I haven't investigated them all

    • Moon landings. Science proves they were a hoax. No dust on lander, no indication of a blast crater, despite official nasa transcripts describing thick dust clouds. 
    • 9/11. Real event (obviously) but inside job. 
    • Sandy hook. Actors caught going round and round in circles through building. No evidence of dead people. 
    • Colorado. Crisis actor forgets he has injury. Supposedly shot twice in the shoulder the day before but he's flailing his arm around in the interview without hesitation. Gunshot wounds look like mosquito bites
    • canadian parliament shooting. Shadow analysis proves it did not happen at the stated time. Way off. No blood underneath "victim" or on responder's white gloves despite multiple gunshots to back and out chest. 
    • Oregon umpqua college. Same deal. 
    • Orlando. Seems like another one. No evidence of dead bodies. 

    I'm expecting the false flags to pick up towards the "election". 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 9:32pm

    #24

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    A pistol is very effective against a rifle in a small space

    Just a few lowly 9 mm bullets fired from a small pistol can stop a semi-automatic wielding assailant.  And in the confines of a room, the range and maneuverability of a pistol may make it equal to or even superior to a rifle.

    The situation would be very different in a gunfight outdoors ranging over 50 to a few hundred yards–the rifle is greatly superior over these ranges.  But over 20 feet, in a crowded room, it seems to me that a pistol would be a very effective tool.

    Here is what I imagine and have read (Tom , please chime in here):  get out of sight behind cover, even lie on the floor behind someone who has already shot.  Look around.  Figure out what is going on.  When you identify the bad guys, put 3-5 rounds into them.  Then hide again and reload.  If there are more bad guys that you didn't notice at first, their attention will be drawn to you.  You need to be hidden at this point.  Crawl to a new location.  Keep watching for an opening to fire on the next one.

    (Of course I have NOT been in many gunfights myself, so I certainly can't speak with great authority.)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 15, 2016 - 11:46pm

    Reply to #18

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Considerations

    Presumably he was also concerned with hitting patrons too, while the shooter clearly felt no such restriction.

    A criminal/killer with a gun does have this big advantage over "good guys" with guns opposed to them.  They can just lay down a high volume of fire, not caring who they hit, but if there are innocents in the area the "good guy" has to try to take aimed shots which takes a lot longer (when you're being fired on 1/10ths of seconds can mean the difference between life and death).

    I notice you aren't going off into "it never happened" and "they're all crisis actors" land with some of the other posters here.  Why is that?

    Our lives resemble "The Matrix" more every day, but we're not actually in "The Matrix" yet.  I know: I took the red pill.  Real people were shot by a real bad guy.  It's too big, complicated and public for it to be anything else.  Now the possibility that information will be withheld from the public for a variety of nefarious reasons is quite high.  I also know the usual players reading from the same script we've been using for years will line up in the aftermath to attempt turn these events to their advantage.  

    Handgun vs. AR-15.  If I was told I was going to be in a shoot out later today and offered my choice of weapons (assuming I couldn't just stay home!) I'd pick the AR-15 every time unless more information was provided.  For instance, one of the rare instances in which I'd prefer a handgun (or knife!) instead of my AR-15 would be if me and my opponent were going to be fighting to the death in a very small space, like the inside of a car. Don't laugh: it's happened to some unfortunate people.  The length of the rifle would be a severe disadvantage within arms reach of your opponent.

    Just a few lowly 9 mm bullets fired from a small pistol can stop a semi-automatic wielding assailant.  And in the confines of a room, the range and maneuverability of a pistol may make it equal to or even superior to a rifle.

    I would never allow myself to think of any handgun round short of .44 magnum as being an effective stopper.  I can tell you story after story of people being hit with handgun rounds (often multiple rounds) up to .45 ACP and not being impressed or even slowed down, much less physically stopped immediately from further fighting.  It's always safest to assume your handgun rounds are not going to have much immediate effect, and so you should plan on continuing to shoot and shoot and shoot until your opponent stops.  You may get "lucky" with your first shot or two, but don't count on it. Count on emptying your magazine and then reloading quickly (you do carry at least one spare magazine or speed loader, right?).  Most people who stop fighting after one or two shots in their direction give up psychologically, not because they're physically incapable of continuing.  (So if you're shot, don't ever give up.  Keep fighting!  You're probably not going to die, unless you give up.)  On that subject, most of the mass murderers we've seen in the US commit suicide or surrender as soon as they are confronted by anyone with a gun, police or civilian.  The Orlando shooter was a rare exception as he kept fighting until he was put down by SWAT.

    Here is what I imagine and have read (Tom , please chime in here):  get out of sight behind cover, even lie on the floor behind someone who has already shot.  Look around.  Figure out what is going on.  When you identify the bad guys, put 3-5 rounds into them.  Then hide again and reload.  If there are more bad guys that you didn't notice at first, their attention will be drawn to you.  You need to be hidden at this point.  Crawl to a new location.  Keep watching for an opening to fire on the next one.

    Think long and hard now what you will do and not do if this kind of thing happens to you.  There's no shame in escaping to safety if you can (unless you've taken an oath to defend innocents with your life – then there would be shame, and possibly prosecution).  If you start shooting at the bad guy you can expect return fire (unless you've got an unusually fine position of cover or concealment).  Are your loved ones standing next to you, clinging to you?  Do you want them exposed to gunfire?  Have you trained them to run away from you and escape if you draw your weapon?  How confident are you they'll actually do that and not cling to you out of instinct?  Maybe get them to safety then return, if you must.  Are you prepared to be sued for poor shooting or tactics, or even for no good reason at all?  And not just getting sued by the bad guy or his family, but some of the people you were protecting.  Are you prepared to be shot by the police in the chaos who thought you were the second shooter?  Are you prepared to be prosecuted by the District Attorney for some tiny imperfection in your actions or just because s/he doesn't like people with guns?  (Has it occurred to anyone claiming there were multiple shooters that, IF they were there, they might have been "good guys" illegally carrying in the bar shooting wildly at the bad guy and missing, then escaping and keeping the whole thing to themselves since they missed the bad buy and were committing a "crime?")

    None of the mass murderers I've seen in the last 15 years in the US seems like the kind of hardened combat veterans who would not be negatively impacted by the stress of a shooting and a life and death experience.  You can expect them to lose most of their fine motor skills and whatever firearm accuracy they would normally have.  You can expect them to get tunnel vision and probably not see you on their flanks.  That and more degrades their abilities and gives you an advantage. But then you have to remember that most of us will be experiencing the same kinds of things and our abilities will be seriously degraded too.  Expect to be 50% less accurate with your shots than an average day at the range.  Excellent training, and experience in combat and in high danger, high adrenaline situations can make a big difference in improving your abilities to respond.  Avoid the latter two if you can, and go for the high quality training designed to help you function well under the stress of a gunfight.  The armed civilian will also have the advantage of surprise, at least until they start shooting.  Use it wisely and it may be enough to win the fight.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 1:55am

    #25

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Just curious why the

    Just curious why the night-clubbers would be carrying the wounded TOWARDS The Pulse nightclub? I was under the understanding that the shooting occurred in the night club. Was there also a shooting down the block? According to the official story, the shooting occurred INSIDE the night club. This video sums it up and I've confirmed on Google street view. You can see the MRI center on the left, the Dunkin Donuts in the middle and the Pulse on the right, and the rescuers are indeed carrying the wounded to the right, TOWARDS the night club. Can someone explain to me why they would be doing this? How did the survivors get a block away in the first place, in order to be carried back to the club? Not to mention why paramedics aren't involved since you can clearly see flashing lights at the nightclub indicating the authorities had arrived?

    Street view

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiLk-V9DFpc

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 4:23am

    #26

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Data point

    Seminole County law enforcement holds active shooter drill (Watch the video embed)- October 19, 2015 (ClickOrlando)

    Seminole Towne Center vs. Pulse Night Club location

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 11:31am

    Reply to #18

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    real people shot by a real bad guy

    … Real people were shot by a real bad guy.  It's too big, complicated and public for it to be anything else.  Now the possibility that information will be withheld from the public for a variety of nefarious reasons is quite high.  I also know the usual players reading from the same script we've been using for years will line up in the aftermath to attempt turn these events to their advantage.

    That's exactly how I feel too.  Lots of real people died, we may never know the full story – possibly for political reasons – and now the cynical struggle commences for all the various political actors to twist it to their advantage.

    Republicans have to say they're sympathetic without being seen to actually be sympathetic towards gay people (who, depending on your viewpoint on the Bible, may well have "brought this on themselves" re: Leviticus).  "They attacked all Americans."  At a gay club.  The target did have significance.  ISIS recognizes this fact, even if many Republicans choose not to.  Reps are wrapping themselves around an axle to avoid being seen as being sympathetic to "the gays."

    And Democrats use this as a stick to beat Republicans on immigration calling them racist (Islam being a religion, Dems are a bit confused here) and somehow forget to mention the influence of radical Islam – or as I'd call it – literal Islam on this whole mix.  If you interpret the words of the Koran literally, well, that's pretty much what the shooter was doing, almost certainly magnified by his own self-hatred for his own attraction to men.

    And Hillary, God bless her, is using this as an excuse to ramp up domestic surveillance EVEN MORE.  Didn't stop any domestic attacks to date, but let's have more of what hasn't worked.  Why not.

    So shall we import a bunch more people who interpret the Koran literally?  I think that's probably a bad idea, because they won't be so happy in a nation where even own own Biblical Literalists don't go around throwing gay men off rooftops.

    At the same time, this guy was 29 years old, born in New York.  Restricting immigration would not have stopped this crime.

    Gun control?  If he couldn't buy an AR-15, but he were still motivated, he might have just used a bomb.

    What would have stopped it?  Well, if Mateen didn't hate himself quite so much, I suspect he wouldn't have gone there.  You could say this was at least partially a product of shame. Possibly if he'd felt free to express himself and act according to his inner nature, there would have been no motivating force to commit this crime.

    And if we hadn't continued destroying nations in the Middle East, ISIS never would have formed, and he wouldn't have had the inspiration to self-radicalize.  No invasion of Iraq: no blowback at Pulse.

    So mind our own business internationally, and be more cognizant of the effects of shaming people in an attempt to change their (unchangeable) inner nature.  That's my recipe.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 12:09pm

    #27

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    The Saker's Analysis of the Orlando Shooting

     

    The Orlando massacre: the lies, the exploitation and

    unasked questions

    The “Islamic homophobe” thesis bites the dust in less than 24 hours

    Right from the start, the Orlando shooting made no sense to me and I said so pretty clearly in an article I posted the same day. You can read the full article here, so I will only mention my main conclusion: that this event had nothing to do with homosexuality, Islam or guns and that:

    If this is not about homosexuality, Islam or guns, what is it about?
    It is about making us believe that is is about homosexuality, Islam and guns, of course!

    Less than 24 hours later, two of the key aspects of the official narrative (really, “spin”) are now already falling apart.

    Homophobia

    The MSM was full of articles denouncing the alleged “homophobia” of the shooter. Even the so-called “alternative” or “independent” echoed this nonsense (see here and here). And now we find out that the shooter himself was a homosexual and that he used “gay dating apps”. So unless we now re-brand Omar Mateen as a “self-hating homosexual” it will be hard to spin this one as a “homophobic hate crime”.

    Islam

    It gets better. While most of us have now heard that Omar Mateen was a Muslim and that he had pledged allegiance to Daesh. It now turns out that he did pledged allegiance to both ISIS and Hezbollah! It might be useful to repeat here that while nominally both ISIS and Hezbollah are “Muslim”, the ISIS Takfiris consider Shia as kufars, as apostates, who betrayed true Islam and turned to idolatry. They also consider them “Iranian agents”. As for Hezbollah, they are The Number One (all in caps) enemy of Daesh/ISIS gang and they refer to these Takfiri maniacs as “devils” (shaitan). What this means is simple and leaves only a few options:

    1. Either Omar Mateen knew nothing about Islam
    2. Or Omar Mateen was coerced into making this statement and he deliberately made it absurd
    3. Or Omar Mateen never said any such thing

    Pick your favorite hypothesis, but what is darn certain is that the contents of his alleged statement leave the “Islamic theory” shattered into pieces. There is simply absolutely no way any real Muslim would simultaneously pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah at the same time.

    (Oh sure, visceral Islam-haters will still claim that Islam is to blame, just as Putin-haters will blame Putin, Jew haters will blame Jews, etc. but the factual basis of the “Islamic theory” is now gone).

    Which leaves only one MSM endorsed explanation for what happened: guns.

    —————————-

    a discussion of the guns aspect …

    —————————-

    Conclusion

    As I mentioned it yesterday – terrorism is really an illusion. For one thing, I am unaware of any form of real terrorism which is not sponsored by at least one, or several, government(s). Furthermore, the actual atrocity, no matter how horrible, is just a trigger for the much more important assault on our minds. You could say that the point of terrorism is not to kill people, it is to make us all stupid. As soon as you understand that you will immediately realize that from the point of view of this logic, the 50 people murdered in Orlando were really only “collateral damage” but that we all are the real targets of this assault. But it is up to us to accept to be the victims of this attack on our minds, or to reject it and refuse to think about it along the narrow confines placed upon us by the “one-way mental blocks” our 1% rulers are trying to place on us. In fact, the only meaningful way to defeat terrorism is to refuse to think in the manner terrorist events are designed to make us think.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 12:47pm

    #28

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4504

    I agree with The Saker

    That's about where my analysis ended up as well.

    The homophobe and Islam angles just didn't add up, and so we're left with another troubled young male with access to guns and no reasonable cultural outlet for his pent up frustrations and lack of healthy connections.

    At most I can say this was another sign of cultural failure.

    My suspicious side would like to know if he was on or recently came off of any psychoactive prescription drugs, SSRIs being at the top of my list of curiosity.  The reason being, of course, an astonishing number of the mass shootings have been committed by young males who just coincidentally happened to be on drugs whose known side effects include "suicidal thoughts and increased aggressive behaviors."  

    A healthy culture, knowing that side effects, though rare, are nonetheless very real, would have a system in place for monitoring the experimental subjects, er lab rats, er patients that are on these wildly powerful drug cocktails that are so commonly prescribed today.

    Perhaps the Orlando shooter was not on anything, but it would be good to know, wouldn't it?  

    At any rate, as DaveF outlined above, every political opportunist in the land is trying to use the Orlando incident to promote themselves and their ideas, but almost nobody is asking the most basic question of all which is, isn't all this just another sign of a culture that schizophrenically demands complete safety (i.e. PC trigger warnings for Trump spelled out in chalk) but also exports the most lethal weapons to the rest of the world and which glorifies violence everywhere from the sports fields to the movie theaters? 

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 1:22pm

    #29

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    its not what you think

    …You can read the full article here, so I will only mention my main conclusion: that this event had nothing to do with homosexuality, Islam or guns.

    Wow.

    Ok, so if the guy had attacked a US military base, that wouldn't be an attack on the US military.  If he'd attacked an evangelical church, that wouldn't have been an attack on conservative Christians, if he blew up a nativity scene with a bomb that's not a war on Christmas (a real one, mind you), if he had blown up a bunch of politicians that wouldn't have been an attack on the corrupt system, and if he had gone after his ex wife, it wouldn't have been an actual attack on his ex-wife, although it would have seemed that way to the uninitiated.

    Do I have that right?

    It seems to me that killing 50 and injuring another 50 patrons of a gay nightclub is…attacking gay people!  Its one of those first principles things.  Blowing up a black church is an attack on people who attend black churches!

    Someone is bending over backwards to avoid saying that gay people were the target here.  Why do you think that is?  If the target was a church full of evangelicals…what would he be saying?  "This wasn't an attack on evangelicals…it might have seemed like that, but it wasn't."

    Or – phrased differently – if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…well, its not really a duck, they just want you think its a duck.  And if you do think its a duck, then the duck-impersonators win!

    So unless we now re-brand Omar Mateen as a “self-hating homosexual” it will be hard to spin this one as a “homophobic hate crime”.

    Ding ding ding.  We have a winner.  It is a hate crime.  A self-hate crime.

    Now then, why would a homosexual hate himself?  Really?  You don't know?  Sweet mother of…man has all the empathy of a sociopath.  Well maybe because Islam told him that being gay was so horrible, God Himself said he needed to be killed.  Every time he went for spiritual guidance, he got the self-hating message that he just needed to die.  So he ended up projecting that outwards and killed a bunch of gay people, and then inwards again as he ran out of the building to be shot down by SWAT.

    And who knows, maybe anti-depressants too.  Mind altering chemicals might have helped too.

    Boy, I'm really happy we Christians don't do that to our children.  Stupid Literal Islamics.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 2:36pm

    Reply to #29

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Dave, can you provide

    Dave, can you provide evidence that a single person was killed, or even injured? So far, I've been told by the media and government that people were shot. But I don't trust a thing they say. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 2:58pm

    Reply to #29
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 316

    The 49 victims

    All there stories can be found on the advocate.com

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 3:16pm

    Reply to #29

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Edwardelinski wrote:All

    [quote=Edwardelinski]

    All there stories can be found on the advocate.com

    [/quote]

    thanks found it. 

    http://www.advocate.com/crime/2016/6/15/city-orlando-begins-release-list-those-killed-pulse-nightclub-shooting

    I’ll be following this over the coming weeks to see if any questions arise about their validity. In previous “shootings” we’ve seen obviously fake profiles put up on social media. Ridiculous long emotional eulogies posted a couple hours after the “shooting” took place. Obviously scripted.
    I admit it seems more difficult to make up these 50 people.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 4:25pm

    #30

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    Some indicators that a real shooting happened in Orlando

    I share Mark_BC's attitude of "show me the bodies" level of evidence requirement! 

    One of our ED nurses here in Charlottesville that I know personally is a friend of an EMT at Orlando Regional Medical Center (named Vincent White) who put this video on facebook of the staff welcoming the night shift ED nurses and paramedics back to work the day after the shooting at the Pulse.  Lots of applause.  This looks authentic to me.

    https://www.facebook.com/FOX13TampaBay/videos/10153764028698525/?pnref=story

    I take this as a back-channel, insiders indicator supporting the view that "something real" happened in Orlando.

    I emailed the Orlando EMT and will see if he offers any more confirming information.

    ——————————

    I have several good friends who are gay who also advise that waves of self hatred internalized from their families and religious belief systems were a BIG part of the distress of the process of discovering that they were gay.  So I strongly back up DaveF's impression that this is a major documented cause of suicide in LGTB youth.  The college counseling office in my home town makes supporting and accepting gay students a very high priority for suicide prevention.

    —————————–

    We just can't believe what we are told

    DaveF, I know that you don't like it when I put 9/11 stuff in your financial discussion threads, but I just have to put it here.  9/11 is the place that I personally learned absolutely without a doubt that you just can't go believing shit that is told to you.  There are organized, brilliant, well funded, deliberate groups that are placing fabricated information into the "real world" and then guiding public discussion of the events.  They say stuff that is just not true.  They stage incidents that didn't happen, or at least didn't happen anything like the way we are told they happened.    A good example is the aluminum framed airplane that plunged into the soft Pennsylvania soil and disappeared without a trace beneath it–disappearing "like a marble through water."  We are assured that though there is no visible trace of an airplane, it really IS there, just buried deep 20 feet beneath the intact earth.  And the environmental impact report at the site found no evidence of jet fuel in the soil.  It is a miracle!!

    At some point something has to click and yell "BULLSHIT.  BULLSHIT.  BULLSHIT."  

    It is a conversion moment.  You cry, you pace you are agitated.  You pray.

    And from then on you do not fit in to respectable society.  You know that you have been changed.

    Everything starts to unravel.  What else is not true?  Why are no "respectable newspaper" op ed writers asking, "Wait a second, how is it that an airplane can plunge through soil and disappear without a trace?"

    Why are NONE of the physicist, chemists and demolition experts interviewed in the New York Times on the unprecedented destruction of the 3 skyscrapers?  NONE.  Ever.  How does the world actually work?

    So when we bring our intellect the task of interpret the causality of a story that was actually fabricated, the best understanding we can create is completely untrue also.

    After 9/11, for me, it was Operation Gladio by Daniele Ganser.  (I will loan you my copy of the book if interested.)  These were terrorist incidents conducted against European civilians at the instruction of the NATO high command with false evidence planted at the scene to implicate "the communists."   Subsequent theorizing on "why the communists had turned to violence" was completely wrong.  It was an analysis of fabricated data which cannot lead to truth.

    Then there is Sandy Hook where I fully admit that I do NOT know what happened.  But it stinks.  Everything about it stinks.  The absolute lack of EMS response, videos of the people milling about the firehouse, refusal to release the death certificates of the children, no visible bodies, no visible resuscitation attempts, no photographs.  The roadway to the school blocked with vehicles.  The interview with the coroner.  The SWAT team member carrying his AR 15 by the magazine.  The absence of holiday decorations on the school in mid December.  Noah Ponzer's second death in Pakistan a few days later.  The Homeland Security sign "Everyone Must Check In."   The documented FEMA drill being conducted in the country that same day.  Photographs of children crossing the parking lot in a line lead by the nice FBI lady–twice.  Multiple takes of the interview with Gene Rosen where he is being coached on what to say.  It just stinks.  Everything about it stinks.

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 5:30pm

    Reply to #30

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Exactly sand_puppy, every one

    Exactly sand_puppy, every one of these events, you can look at any particular aspect if it and they all just stink. You bring up the lack of evidence if a plane in the ground, I have looked at other things. They ALL stink. Then I automatically question EVERYTHING. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 6:39pm

    Reply to #30

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    operation northwoods

    SP-

    No I'm not objecting to you bringing up all the other false flag cases.  And I'm not objecting to any of your other cases.  I haven't looked into them, so I have nothing to contribute on that score.

    Besides, I have the FOIA release for Operation Northwoods sitting here on my computer; that's a smoking gun document if there ever was one, signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.  These things happen for sure, approved at the highest levels.

    I just don't think this is one of those cases.

    I really wish I knew someone in Orlando that I could ask.  There's no substitute for on the ground validation, but I don't know anyone there.  But I know if this happened in my neighborhood, and other people far away on the Internet (none of whom were professionals, like Tom) were saying "oh no, that never occurred, 5 of your friends really didn't die, you're just a crisis actor, show me the bodies, I want to see the blood myself…" this would make me more than a little upset.

    One might expect these "everyone's a crisis actor youtube investigators" to actually fly to the scene to try and figure out if its true.  What a story if they broke it!  Then again, if they found it was true, do you think they'd admit it?  And have all that egg on their face?  Spent a whole $200 on plane fare only to find out it was a real event after all?  Big story for them.  "Event Actually Happened!  103 gay men really were killed and injured!  I was wrong and I'm sorry for misleading you."  Sure, I can see that happening.

    The problem with the "youtube investigators" is, you'll never get a confirmation something is real.  It doesn't align with their worldview, so they'd never post it, even if it were true.  They'd be too disappointed that actual people died.

    Even the "real news" blasts the incorrect headlines on page one, and publishes the retraction on page 33.  In a very small font.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 16, 2016 - 8:22pm

    Reply to #29

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Mark_BC wrote:I admit it

    [quote=Mark_BC]

    I admit it seems more difficult to make up these 50 people.[/quote]

    On the other hand it makes it much more difficult to hide the observation that as far as I know, there is no footage of stretchers and body bags. For 50 people??? Has anyone seen any footage of this?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 12:09am

    Reply to #29

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Motives, etc.

    I'm completely with you Dave.  The shooter's motives appear quite plain to me too, and I'll add another element people seem to be forgetting.

    Someone is bending over backwards to avoid saying that gay people were the target here.  Why do you think that is?  If the target was a church full of evangelicals…what would he be saying?  "This wasn't an attack on evangelicals…it might have seemed like that, but it wasn't."

    Or – phrased differently – if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…well, its not really a duck, they just want you think its a duck.  And if you do think its a duck, then the duck-impersonators win!

    So unless we now re-brand Omar Mateen as a “self-hating homosexual” it will be hard to spin this one as a “homophobic hate crime”.

    Ding ding ding.  We have a winner.  It is a hate crime.  A self-hate crime.

    Now then, why would a homosexual hate himself?  Really?  You don't know?  Sweet mother of…man has all the empathy of a sociopath.  Well maybe because Islam told him that being gay was so horrible, God Himself said he needed to be killed.  Every time he went for spiritual guidance, he got the self-hating message that he just needed to die.  So he ended up projecting that outwards and killed a bunch of gay people, and then inwards again as he ran out of the building to be shot down by SWAT.

    So here's my thinking.  The shooter was a literal Muslim eager to please Allah, follow the Koran and therefore engage unbelievers in jihad.  He also had homosexual desires (and probably acted on them) and predictably felt very guilty about that considering his religion which as far as I can tell in this early stage of my study of Islam and the Koran pronounces homosexuality an offense guaranteed to get the sinner eternal suffering in Hell.  Furthermore, I don't see any possibility of forgiveness offered to gays in Islam (but my study continues though the shooter didn't see that possibility either).  So I imagine the shooter struggled mightily to stop his homosexuality but never completely succeeded and became depressed and desperate about going to Hell.  (And I'm curious with Chris M. about whether he was on or recently stopped any of the medications which have been connected to so many of these killers).  Then he seized on an eternal solution: the Koran guarantees immediate transport to Paradise for all who die for Allah in jihad against unbelievers (presumably even homosexuals, since it isn't qualified).  So he kills a bunch of American gays for Allah punctuated by his pledge of fealty to ISIS (making sure the whole world, and Allah, know he died in jihad and wants to claim his reward in spite of his personal sins).  

    Earlier I was going to suggest we engage our network of relationships ala "Six Degrees of Separation" and see if we can find somebody who was involved in Orlando.  Sand_puppy beat me to it with one confirming anecdote.  I'm 100% sure we could get more if we wanted to, but then that still wouldn't absolutely prove anything because it might be that our contacts were duped by the same false demonstration using crisis actors that is being shown on the media.

    Someone is bending over backwards to avoid saying that gay people were the target here.  Why do you think that is?

    As I said early on in this thread, there are plenty of powerful and motivated interests who would like this NOT to be a conscious attack on gays and NOT motivated by a true understanding of Islam.  The Obama administration, the media and most liberals/progressives have included the "poor, long-suffering Muslims" as one of the victim groups in their rainbow coalition, along with the whole LGBT community.Their narrative begins to fall apart if one of their victim groups (Muslims) is oppressing one of their other victim groups.  Of course, the whole Muslim appeasement impetus will also fall apart if it is discovered that Islam (at least as practiced by the literal, true believers who know the Koran) is no longer credibly called the religion of peace and becomes more accurately understood as the religion of world conquest by violent jihad if persuasion doesn't work.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 1:53am

    Reply to #30

    westcoastjan

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 04 2012

    Posts: 177

    Am with you on this one Sand Puppy

    At some point something has to click and yell "BULLSHIT.  BULLSHIT.  BULLSHIT."  

    It is a conversion moment.  You cry, you pace you are agitated.  You pray.

    And from then on you do not fit in to respectable society.  You know that you have been changed.

    And I will never again be the same I was before the conversion point… I feel like an alien amongst family, friends and colleagues who have yet to even acknowledge or consider alternative paradigms, never mind have a conversion moment themselves…

    Everything starts to unravel.  What else is not true?  Why are no "respectable newspaper" op ed writers asking, "Wait a second, how is it that an airplane can plunge through soil and disappear without a trace?"

    Why are NONE of the physicist, chemists and demolition experts interviewed in the New York Times on the unprecedented destruction of the 3 skyscrapers?  NONE.  Ever.  How does the world actually work?

    So when we bring our intellect the task of interpret the causality of a story that was actually fabricated, the best understanding we can create is completely untrue also.

    The fear of the truth for most people creates a mental no-go zone. They just cannot go there, are not going to go there, regardless of evidence presented. It will destroy their beliefs. They know they will not be able to handle what lurks on the other side. As my otherwise highly intelligent and perceptive sister likes to say "I like my bubble and this is where I am going to live. I don't care what's going on out there" Sigh…

     …. It just stinks.  Everything about it stinks.

    With each passing day the stench grows on multiple fronts. So much so that soon the un-converted are going to need gas masks. And then they are going to wonder what the heck happened that made them need gas masks. Kind of like the people in Greece who never heeded warnings to get their money out of the banks when there was all kinds of red flags flying, and then wondered why they were stuck in big ATM line ups and were lucky if they could get any money at all.

    Meanwhile, back in real reality, I see while waiting in line at the grocery check out counter that the Kardashians and Jenners remain ever important and trendy, Brad and Jen are both divorcing (GASP!) and Dolly Parton will soon be touring Canada. Let the good times roll………. life is good!

    Dave F – excellent post in #53.

    Jan

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 3:58am

    Reply to #28
    VeganDB12

    VeganDB12

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2008

    Posts: 109

    marijuana and steroid history

    http://www.tcpalm.com/news/special/orlando-shooting/exclusive-mateen-admitted-to-drug-use-other-crimes-on-irsc-police-academy-application-356678c8-d069–383323751.html

     

    Not sure of validity of this report but food for thought. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 4:06am

    #31

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Darkness

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 6:00am

    #32

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Respectable

    [quote=sand_puppy]And from then on you do not fit in to respectable society.[/quote]

    From then on respectable society no longer fits all that well within you.

    I choose to believe that we landed on the moon. As part of my belief system. Realizing that we may or may not have, in fact, done so.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 1:21pm

    #33

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 836

    To answer your statement, dave, in our conversation

    I understand that you think that if a person can not divorce themselves from the inclination, then condemnation of the sin MUST condemn the sinner.
    Therefore, despite my statement that I only condemn the sin, not the person, you take the opposite viewpoint.

    Therefore, too, it makes sense to you that the assailant may have been trying to jihad his way past the damnation for his homosexuality. This last point, I think very possible.

    Shall I go on, and answer your charge?

    The key is in my answer to your question if I had ever chosen straight or gay, in that I find straight to be much more than homo/hetero (I admit that the social meaning is homo/hetero, but straight in the Christian sense is much more rigorous). My answer was that I had to fight that battle and lose, repeatedly trying again and confessing my sins, for seven years. Then it was taken away.

    Perhaps that is the meaning at the beginning of the Gospel of John, “…gave the power to be sons of God…”, understanding that the song of Moses was that we DON’T have the power to do what we know is good.

    So I really can say I’ve been there, done that. The difference between the islamist homosexual’s position and mine, is that the forgiveness starts immediately despite failure, and empowers me to try again.

    So no, from the Christian viewpoint, saying “God really hates that” is not a condemnation of the person, EVEN IF the person has no power to choose otherwise. The expectation of the Christian is that in confessing our sins, we will receive full forgiveness; and that someday we WILL have power to choose otherwise, and that when we are given the choice, we WILL choose well.

    A very optimistic thought for what seems a pessimistic condition for all humanity.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 1:22pm

    Reply to #32

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Time2help wrote:I choose to

    [quote=Time2help]

    I choose to believe that we landed on the moon. As part of my belief system. Realizing that we may or may not have, in fact, done so.

    [/quote]

    Interesting, I to used to believe that. Even as a conspiracy theorist, I wanted to believe it. Then one day I decided to use a scientific approach to analyze the evidence… and was forced to let that one go too…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 2:33pm

    #34
    Jerome Hobelman

    Jerome Hobelman

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 04 2009

    Posts: 10

    Condition White

    I believe it was Jeff Cooper who observed that Americans live in a condition white world and have done so since the Civil War.  I would add that most Americans have and teach their children an absolute expectation that Condition White (a perpetually and completely safe environment) is natural, what should happen, and is their "do".   We expect our Governments, politicians and police to provide absolute safely and we react like children when we don't get it.  An infantilized society is a danger to itself, running after political candidates as if they were saviours.  This can't end well.

    Thank you all for your posts about Orlando.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 3:34pm

    Reply to #34

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    levin wrote:I believe it was

    [quote=levin]

    I believe it was Jeff Cooper who observed that Americans live in a condition white world and have done so since the Civil War.  I would add that most Americans have and teach their children an absolute expectation that Condition White (a perpetually and completely safe environment) is natural, what should happen, and is their "do".   We expect our Governments, politicians and police to provide absolute safely and we react like children when we don't get it.  An infantilized society is a danger to itself, running after political candidates as if they were saviours.  This can't end well.

    Thank you all for your posts about Orlando.

    [/quote]

    One thing I've noticed about all these "attacks" is that the media and government dramatize and sensationalize them as much as possible. They give us all these sentimental stories about the "victims" and seem to be trying to rile up our emotions. 

    To me this seems totally contrary to a genuine response to terrorism. By doing this sensationalism they are actually helping the terrorists achieve their goal of terrorizing a nation! In that respect the government is complicit in terrorism! Of course I argue that the government is the one carrying out the attacks too but even if you don't believe that, it us undeniable that the government is doing everything it can to hype up the emotional reactions.

    if the government was really interested in combatting terrorism it would clamp down on the reporting if the incidents and not give the terrorists what they want — airtime. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 4:22pm

    #35

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    Jeff Cooper's Color Code System

    I appreciate levin's mentioning of Jeff Cooper's color code system.  I found a reference to it here.

    The Color Code System — 5 States of Readiness.

    • White – unaware, not paying attention
    • Yellow – attentive, but relaxed
    • Orange – focus is directed, there is an immediate potential threat
    • Red – there is a definitive threat
    • Black – you are actively fighting

    The descriptions of the States of Readiness is very good too.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 5:32pm

    Reply to #32

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Re: Interesting

    [quote=Mark_BC]

    [quote=Time2help]

    I choose to believe that we landed on the moon. As part of my belief system. Realizing that we may or may not have, in fact, done so.

    [/quote]

    Interesting, I to used to believe that. Even as a conspiracy theorist, I wanted to believe it. Then one day I decided to use a scientific approach to analyze the evidence… and was forced to let that one go too…

    [/quote]

    I would just like to believe that we did is all.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 6:48pm

    #36

    Sterling Cornaby

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 05 2012

    Posts: 150

    Moon landing and the seeds of distrust

    I am not too concerned about the moon landing conspiracies.

    Here is a paper from a physicist using a mirror(s) that we got on the moon for his physics research stuff; http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/papers/rop-llr.pdf  This happens to be the same guy who has the 'do the math' website that I was quite fond of when he was more actively writing.  He has a fair amount of peak oil type stuff in his articles.  Maybe the mirrors got placed there some other way.  I trust the mirrors are on the moon, so therefore I trust they got there as people say they got there. 

     

    I will readily admit, I do have a bias in this trust. As a physicist I am more inclined to trust most other physicists (or any other scientist that is focused on his/her trade).  But if another scientist (or anyone else really) burns my trust bridge by willful deceitfulness or blunt ignorance, that trust is over.  

    Like many of you, I absolutely do not trust sources of information that have ties to political power since struggling with information about 9/11.  The mythological story I was given on 9/11 by political power is pure deceptive bullshit

    The whole 9/11 stories craziness reminds me of the leprechaun that tied ribbons around every tree in the forest to hide his gold.  So much out there stinks, there are so many false narratives out there to blur the track to even a reasonable truth.  Political power will make you turn over every rock in the forest to find their inconvenient truths; its maddening.  Every time I see a tragic story go politically charged like this one, in my minds eye I sees political leprechauns' running rampant in the forest desperately seeding false stories in order to protect their power.    

    It really is tough knowing how much deception is being used on me each day.  There is a price to pay for for knowing there are mischievous political magicians tricking me to give my (and your) power to them.  Like Time2Help said, I do not want to be well adjusted to our sick society.

    Thanks for all of your different prospective everyone.  I find it extremely helpful.  It keeps me sane. (or maybe insane depending on your perspective!) 

    Sterling        

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 7:51pm

    Reply to #36

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Sterling, believe it or not

    Sterling, believe it or not but it was Tom Murphy who kept me believing in the moon landings for so long. In the end I explain his mirror argument that it was later unmanned missions that placed them. 

    What convinced me was nasa's own website and Apollo 15. The transcript describes huge clouds if dust on landing. But nasa's own high res photos show absolutely no trace of dust anywhere on the lander. Am I to believe that dust doesn't land on things in a vacuum? Furthermore, there is no hint of a blast crater or any disturbance if the ground despite the rocket nozzle sitting 1 inch away and apparently hitting so hard that it got bent. 

    Ive mulled this over from every angle and there is no possible explanation for this. I'm at work on my phone but later tonight I can post links to the photos and transcript, I'd be interested to hear your take on it. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 8:05pm

    #37

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    This just in! Breaking news!

    This just in! Breaking news! The terrorists are winning! 

    The number 1 fear of British Colombians is terrorism. Poll conducted before Orlando. This despite no incidence of terrorism in bc, and only 1 incident in canada which i say was a hoax. 1 military guy was supposedly shot. 

    More irrational fears like shark attack. Globally about 5 people die from sharks a year but it's sensationalized way out of proportion.

    http://www.insightswest.com/news/terrorism-heights-and-snakes-are-top-fears-in-british-columbia/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 8:16pm

    Reply to #36

    Sterling Cornaby

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 05 2012

    Posts: 150

    Sure

    If you have spent time on this subject, I am willing to listen to what you have to say.  I personally do not see anyone in the PP community that is either blatantly deceptive or bluntly ignorant.  I owe a great deal to this community on my personal education opening up to ideas!  I will look at what you want to present as openly as I can.  I will unlikely comment further on this just because I don't want to push any ideas I do not personally own. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 8:25pm

    Reply to #25
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1357

    critical thinkers?

    I don't know who narrated this video, but he is either a con man or completely stupid.  How did none of the so-called critical thinkers on this site not notice or comment on at least one plausible explanation?  Put yourself there.  There's pandemonium with bullets flying everywhere, dead and dying all around the club.  What are you going to do if you are injured but mobile, or are just trying to escape?  Get as far away as possible.  I would be far more than two buildings down the street.  

    Then what happens?  First responders show up in force, the bad guy is shot and things settle down.  But, many of those who escaped still have wounds that need to be tended to.  What do they do?  They go back to where the ambulances and other first responders are, in front of the club.

    I don't know if this is precisely what happened, but to claim this video is proof of anything is delusional.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 9:29pm

    #38

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Quite a rant: the left has sold LGBT's out

    7 minutes

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlqXgXwzkPg

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 17, 2016 - 9:31pm

    Reply to #25

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    I didn't see any medical

    I didn't see any medical first responders. I am told there is a hospital half a mile down the road. Possibly they wounded were trying to get there. Then why would they be running back to the nightclub when there were also flashing cop cars to the left, where they were running FROM? Why are there 50 cop cars there but no ambulances if the hospital is only half a mile down the road? Why were the video cameras set up behind the fence beside radio shack? Seems an odd place to film from when all the action was happening half a block away at the club, and there didn't appear to be anyone keeping them from setting up closer.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 1:51am

    Reply to #25

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Mark BC...

    Nothing to see here.. please move along…

    https://memoryholeblog.com/2016/06/16/orlando-gay-club-shooter-is-also-an-actor/#more-29441

    Omar Mateen is identified as among Love City, Jalalabad‘s full cast and crew, portraying the role of “Bad Boy”.

    Here’s a promo video-clip from Love City, Jalalabad, showing transvestites and a dwarf in lurid makeup:

    But that's not wierd, right?  Just a coincidence.   

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 4:45am

    Reply to #36

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Sterling Cornaby wrote:If

    [quote=Sterling Cornaby]

    If you have spent time on this subject, I am willing to listen to what you have to say.  I personally do not see anyone in the PP community that is either blatantly deceptive or bluntly ignorant.  I owe a great deal to this community on my personal education opening up to ideas!  I will look at what you want to present as openly as I can.  I will unlikely comment further on this just because I don't want to push any ideas I do not personally own. 

    [/quote]

    Thanks for your open mind. I have never ever intentionally misled or presented knowingly false info or analysis. I may be influenced by bias sometimes and talking beyond my level of understanding, just like everyone, but never intentionally.

    Here is some of the strange evidence surrounding Apollo 15.
     
    The official transcript is here. Also see the whole mission report here. You can read at 104:41:39
     
    "At about 50 to 60 feet, the total view outside was obscured by dust. It was completely IFR (Instrument Flight Rules). I came into the cockpit (that is, switched his attention from the view out the window to the instrument readings that Jim was giving him) and flew with the instruments from there on down."
     
    OK that makes sense, lots of loose dust on the surface being kicked up by the powerful rocket exhaust into a vacuum.
     
    Let's see what the photos of the landing site look like. Here are all of the photos.
     
    Very odd how there isn't a single speck of dust on any part of the lander that I can see in image 11839. Especially zoom in to the feet. Perfectly clean. How is that consistent with dust clouds so thick that they had to use instruments to land? Is there any reason why the dust would preferentially NOT land on the lander? Was there some kind of static repulsion pushing the dust away? I've never heard of that. And if so, why did the dust stick to all the other equipment they brought out onto the surface after landing? Was the exhaust pushing the dust away from them? Surely some of it would have gone up vertically and landed on them, and some would have collected in nooks and crannies of the equipment.
     
    Now let's look at the ground. Hmmm, no evidence of any blast crater in image 11842 which you might expect from such a huge dust cloud. Also notice how the edge of the nozzle is about an inch above the dust, with no indication of any disturbance whatsoever underneath. How does a rocket engine come to rest an inch above the dust and not leave a mark? (true, it was shut off a few feet above the ground but a rocket engine a few feet above loose dust? Surely that would leave a mark).
     
    Near the end of the long discussion at 104:42:48 they talk about the crater they almost landed in. Also, Apollo 15 was one of the fastest impacts at 7 feet per second, which combined caused the nozzle to impact the ground. You can see the crumpling in image 11882. But does that really look like it impacted at 7 fps? The landing gear looks pretty intact and immaculate to me. The nozzle looks almost immaculate except for its crumple. What temperature does rocket fuel burn at? You'd think there would be some kind of mark on it. Furthermore, if the nozzle hit the ground then where is the mark in the dust?
    Also note the tinfoil wrapping over everything on image 11841. Officially this is more than tinfoil, it is reflective foil. But structurally, I can't see how it's any stronger than tinfoil especially since you can see they repaired it with tape. I find it hard to believe that tinfoil wrapped around some landing gear only a few feet away from a rocket engine blasting up huge dust clouds could survive such an ordeal and come out so pretty!
     
    Then you have to ask: if it was a Hollywood set, how could they overlook something so obvious as putting dust on the lander and not making a blast crater? I have heard it explained that certain people purposely left these clues there so future people like us would have smoking guns to find. I admit, the commentary in the transcripts and descriptions seems very real. But the commentary for 2001: A Space Odyssey was pretty realistic too.
     
    The other problem is something you could appreciate as a physicist. Thermodynamically, there is no way they could have dumped their heat and they would have fried like an egg. On Earth, we have convection to cool us down. But in a vacuum, they had only conduction with the ground and IR radiation to outer space. But conduction would have only made them hotter since the ground was already sizzling. IR radiation to outer space wouldn't help since that's where the heat was coming from.
     
    The explanation I have heard is that they arrived in the lunar morning (a lunar day is 27 days) so that the sun angle was shallow and not intense. But this doesn't seem to agree with the shadows they are casting which aren't very long, meaning that they were there in the mid lunar day. They were there for 67 hours, all in the blasting sun the whole time. Furthermore, even if the sun was at a low angle it would still be hitting the lunar module and their space suits straight on the side so it would have heated up regardless, with no atmosphere to dissipate the morning sun like on Earth.
     
    In an interview one of the astronauts is asked how they kept cool when the astronauts themselves have said the surface fries up to 250 F. He seemed to hesitate and said they had air conditioners. When asked how they were powered he again hesitated, "batteries, a big bank of batteries". Well that's really nice but the only way they could transfer the heat out is through a heat pump and a heat pump has to dump the heat somewhere and there was nowhere to dump it to. Air conditioners don't work in a vacuum.
     
    The explanation for how they kept their suits cool was that they used ice sublimators. I did the calculations and based on the heat of sublimation it might be possible to keep them cool with an amount of ice they could have brought with them. But what information do we have about this? Where was the water stored and distributed? The astronaut told us they used big air conditioners to keep cool, not ice sublimators. Furthermore, just because the numbers might work energetically doesn't mean it's practically possible to sublimate ice at anywhere near the proper rate to achieve that cooling. This guy has looked into it and found no real answers.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 7:23am

    Reply to #29

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    jihad and "radical islam"

    Tom-

    I'm not so sure Mateen was quite so literal to start.  But by the end of his journey, ISIS and jihad were the way he found out of his puzzle.  Him killing a bunch of unbelievers who were also gay is only following passages in the Hadith, which lay out the punishment for MSM: death.  Just like Leviticus.

    The whole "attain paradise through violence" meme seems to be an unfortunate bug in the code of the Islamic religion, especially from the point of view of an unbeliever like me. (Its great for troop morale in time of war, but its more problematic during peacetime).   Fortunately, Christianity does not have this bug, although it could be argued that the Crusades were exactly that in substance, if not in form.

    As an unbeliever, you risk being blown up by your radical/literal Islamic neighbor if things go sideways.  And since we're a nation mainly of unbelievers, it seems problematic to import a bunch of people from nations where they still use a 7th century justice system.  That's not true in all Islamic nations, but it is definitely true in some of them.  Maybe we should be more selective about that.  Anyone we let in should already be relatively well socialized by western standards.

    So what is "radical Islam" anyway?  Its a bit of a trigger phrase that comes without a lot of meaning attached, at least for me.  If we said instead nations who believe that their legal system should be/is based on a literal reading of the Koran and the accompanying Hadith, well most people won't know what that is.  After reading through the legal-oriented bits and pieces, it felt a lot like the stuff I read in the OT: harsh punishments for basic crimes.  Pretty much the punishments are either: 100 lashes, or death.  Death by burning, stoning, hanging, or the famous tossed-off-a-rooftop-then-stoned-if-you-survive.  Death by spectacle.

    If I were commanding an 7th century army of fractious, touchy people who would happily settle disputes about adultery or other issues with weapons, I might well construct laws like this too.  Better "the state" executes the troublemakers than the troops – self-help justice could turn into a very nasty civil war as friends and relatives from both sides get sucked into impromptu combat over "matters of honor."  Without strict order, the army (or the immediate follow-on society) will devolve into chaos pretty rapidly.

    And what causes the most problems?  Well, drinking, sex (and fighting over sex partners), parties and music.  Again, with touchy troops, its a recipe for instant fighting.  Just look at all the fights at clubs today.  Now assume everyone comes heavily armed, with their friends, in a culture of instant legal self-help, where all are very willing to use weapons to settle any dispute.

    I mean, it all makes sense from that standpoint.  Stop trouble before it starts.  And women cause big trouble – or rather, fights over women.  That's why you need to hide them – so they don't cause trouble.  I'm sure our 7th century commander's thoughts were frequently occupied on keeping his own people from killing each other over the basics.

    But for living in today's world, its just an absurdity, much as it would be if we implemented some sort of "OT-based legal system" that would be chock full of similar crimes and punishments.  The restrictions were required back then to keep order, but in exchange personal freedoms were greatly curtailed.  There's just no need to have such sacrifices today.

    Mercifully, not every modern Islamic country feels the need to implement this 7th century legal code that seemed structured to keep order in a fractious army.  But for the countries that still do, its really a very different world.  And bringing citizens from such places into the US is a recipe for some serious culture shock on both sides.

    In doing my reading I tried to get inside the heads of those who wrote these rules, and I think I did.  It actually made complete sense back then – as much as Leviticus made sense to the Jews 3000 years ago.

    But it makes absolutely no sense now.  And when I say none, I mean zero, nada, zilch.  We aren't a 7th century commander trying to keep an army of heavily armed sociopathic nomads from self-destructing.  So why have a legal system built to keep order in such a circumstance?

    Reminds me of Leviticus:20, with the "Jihad bug" added in just for fun.

    Some systems are really useful when they are created, but once blessed as "Holy Scripture" it seems that they often stick around long past their sell-by date.

    Applied common sense.  We need more of it.  My opinion.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 10:02am

    #39

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    This Stinks

    Dig through these objectively and try to ignore the narrative biases. Just look for oddities and inconsistences. The script reading by the lady is blatant.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2ewNQMdu7A

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhJfp-gRu5U

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgidWfAAhfM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVEqdH7QGWs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaHtxlSDgbk

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 10:55am

    Reply to #29
    Tim Ladson

    Tim Ladson

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 22 2012

    Posts: 16

    Great Explanations

    Dave,

    Thanks to you and everyone who commented for helping me to understand the deeper forces driving this difficult topic. We will need better knowledge of motivations if we are going to make progress merging the diverse cultures in our shrinking world.

    Tim 

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 11:15am

    Reply to #29

    Oliveoilguy

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 29 2012

    Posts: 520

    So what is Radical Islam Anyway?

    Dave….Good question.  "So what is Radical Islam Anyway?"

    I would suggest the answer to be …Shiria Law adherents and believers constitute Radical Islam.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 11:32am

    Reply to #29

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Muslims attack Radiohead fans for drinking alcohol

    I have been using the phrase "Radical Islam" to mean literal Islam which aims to faithfully live by the words of the Koran, the Haddiths, etc. which includes eventually establishing Sharia law over the whole world.  The majority of the world's Muslims fit that definition so that makes them mainstream in their own minds, but "radical" to most Westerners.

    In Istanbul, Turkey mainstream Turkish Muslim true believers stormed a Radiohead listening party and beat those present inside the music shop with pipes because the music fans were drinking alcohol during the holy month of Ramadan.  This is what happens when Muslims are in the majority and Sharia is the foundation of all laws.

    http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/06/18/quick-ban-pipes-and-glass-bottles/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 5:41pm

    #40

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    DaveF is describing the RED to BLUE transition

    The Spiral Dynamics framing of the issues DaveF elaborates on above (#84) is the transition of social organizational structure from RED Meme to BLUE.

    If I were commanding an 7th century army of fractious, touchy people who would happily settle disputes about adultery or other issues with weapons, I might well construct laws like this too.

    And what causes the most problems?  Well, drinking, sex (and fighting over sex partners), parties and music.  Again, with touchy troops, its a recipe for instant fighting.  Just look at all the fights at clubs today.  And women cause big trouble – or rather, fights over women.  That's why you need to hide them – so they don't cause trouble.  I'm sure our 7th century commander's thoughts were frequently occupied on keeping his own people from killing each other over the basics.

    So you are the leader trying to bring this unruly mob into some kind of effective social unit.  You are going to need some rules and to have people internalize the rules (feel "right" about obeying them).   I don't know enough about the history of Islam, but I do know the broad strokes of the Old Testament story of the RED to BLUE transition.  

    Moses is trying to lead the now homeless and unruly bunch of Hebrews wandering in the desert.  Things are going badly.

    Moses goes up on a mountain, mystical things happen and he comes back down with RULES WRITTEN IN STONE and a mythology to motivate a deep internalization of living by rules.

    • Don't kill each other.
    • Don't steal stuff.
    • Don't lie.
    • Leave your neighbors wife alone.
    • Always be dedicated to God first (and follow his rules).

    For a RED Meme society, the advancement to living by rules written in stone (BLUE) is a tremendous step forward.  Economic effectiveness, personal safety, the ability to do cooperative projects, etc.

    So initially the transition from RED to BLUE is an awesome step forward.

    Later some problems start to show up.  It turns out the RED/BLUE transitional "GOD" (part warlord part rule enforcer) really wants his people to conquer and acquire territory and to kill everyone who stands in their way.  Joshua, who articulates the wishes of this RED/BLUE "God" takes the lead now.  A bible history website tells the story:

    Before they enter the land, the Jewish people send an envoy to the Canaanites with the message, “God, the Creator of the Universe has promised this land to our forefathers. We are now here to claim our inheritance, and we ask you to leave peacefully.”

    Needless to say most of the Canaanites don’t. (Only one tribe takes the offer and leaves.)

    Meanwhile, Joshua has clear instructions from God that if the Canaanites don’t get out, the Jews must wipe them out, … [The stated reason is that the] Canaanites are extremely immoral and idolatrous people [and must be killed off in their entirety to keep from corrupting the Jewish people].

    Such is the nature of a strict BLUE or a RED/BLUE social structure.  The outgroups deserve extermination (for God / for purity / for righteousness / to cleanse the population of unholiness and sin).

    In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" God ordered similar things when the Israelites were invading the promised land.

    Deuteronomy 2:34  We conquered all his towns and completely destroyed everyone–men, women, and children. Not a single person was spared.

    Deuteronomy 3:6  We completely destroyed[a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying[b] every city—men, women and children.

    To keep "God's people" pure and true you just gotta kill of all those sinful unbelievers:

    Deuteronomy 20:16-18

    16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

    17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

    18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

    Western Societies have generally moved far past the days of the RED/BLUE "God."  The middle east lags behind.  So I really agree with Tom on this:  It is very reasonable to expect terrible trouble when large numbers of RED/BLUE Muslim men enter into a GREEN pluralistic western country.  Dismissing this concern as "racism" is not valid.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 6:22pm

    Reply to #25

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    MSM misrepresented the story

    Doug,

    I didn't watch the video until you "debunked" it. (Have you consulted Popular Mechanics for the definitive view?)

    While I was watching the video, my wife came into the office. She saw the Orlando shooting report on one of the mainstream morning shows the next day. She said she recognized the victim "carry" scenes but thought that they were being carried out of the Pulse and out of immediate danger. According to her recollection, that is how it was being sold on TV.

    As the video narrator noted, they were being carried back toward the Pulse (not out of it.) Were they being carried to ambulances? Wouldn't it be better to just send an ambulatory person to fetch an ambulance? Of course, in the heat of the moment, rational thoughts don't always get considered. The patrons may have thought that doing this was the best way to save their friends. The carry scene looks like it was shot using a cell phone. It could have been purposefully staged, or it could have been someone innocently just wanting to document the bravery of friends saving friends. They certainly got momentary notoriety for their "brave" deeds.

    Either way, the MSM glommed onto the video and misrepresented the story. They do that sort of thing.

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 18, 2016 - 6:53pm

    Reply to #25
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1357

    I don't doubt...

    …that the msm misrepresented the video. My only point is there is a very high likelihood that the narrator misrepresented what actually happened. It certainly Isn’t “100 percent proof” of anything. So, we have two sources that are likely lying. Fog of war and all that. People are just too gullible.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 1:05am

    #41

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Toward a fuller understanding of literal Islam

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EV-oIPgoc

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 3:02am

    Reply to #39

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 278

    Thanks Time2Help.That second

    Thanks Time2Help.

    That second video with the footage of the "rescuers" carrying the "wounded" to the right, then thinking they are done with the video, not realizing that the camera is still rolling, then they the put the guy down so he can stand up then back away and do a little dance… there's so way anyone could deny that that is proof positive that the thing was staged.

    Here's another video that proves that the 2012 Colorado theater shooting was staged — an interview with Anderson Cooper of CNN no less.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9w8szNlys

    How someone can be shot twice in the shoulder, and then a day later not have any blood or discharge from the wounds such that you can wear a T shirt without any stains on the shirt, that boggles me. And why they would put the bandage on his forearm and not his shoulder is beyond me. And how you can lift up and flail your arm around as if it had no injury at all (look at 1:20), after you got shot twice in the shoulder, who knows. But I'm no emergency room nurse so what do I know!!!

    The thing is, our job is easy. All we have to do is find just one glaring, unexplainable inconsistency in these hoaxes which then disproves that particular hoax. Then you have to ask, if one of them is a hoax, then how many are hoaxes? It would stand to reason that they have an entire "hoax program". But it's not just one unexplainable inconsistency that we can point out, it's multiple huge problems in each hoax. The hard part for us is not exposing the hoaxes, the hard part is convincing people that they are hoaxes because people want to believe that our leaders are on our side and are not heinous, and that those brown sand people are bad guys.

    So what is the purpose of these hoaxes? I see several reasons that go hand in hand:

     

    • Gun control. The elites want serfs that can't retaliate. This ties in with the future destruction of the dollar and the social chaos that will result. The military doesn't want people running around with assault weapons when it is trying to maintain order. Plus the military doesn't want to be attacked by assault weapons.
    • Along with the issue of gun control, the elites realize that they are never going to confiscate all the guns. But by making it illegal to own certain guns, or easy to break Draconian new gun laws that violate the 2nd amendment, they will then have the authority to lock up the troublemakers before / when SHTF, to get them out of the way.
    • To further the Muslim-hating agenda. It's no secret that Israel was intimately involved in 9/11 and seems to be pulling the strings at the top of the USA and western world. Israel hates the Muslim countries.
    • Along with fueling the Muslim-hating agenda, the military needs to maintain public support for the continuous wars in the oil-rich and strategic areas of the Middle East, which by pure coincidence happen to also be Muslim… I find it interesting that even on this thread on PP there is so much discussion about radical Islam etc. What I find interesting is that Afghanistan was actually a pretty progressive place in the 1970's; women were gaining rights. Then it all went downhill after the Soviets invaded and later the Americans, with continuous occupation since. Similar could be said about Iraq. So it seems "Radical Islam" is fueled by invasion and occupation by western militaries. Geez, who'd a thunk??? (never mind that Omar Mateen was a professional actor born and raised in the US).
    • Further to the Muslim-hating agenda, the faux war on ISIS in Syria (western governments created and fund ISIS) has resulted in huge immigration to Europe which is causing all sorts of problems. This feeds well into the agenda of destabilizing countries politically and provides a convenient scapegoat for future problems that are ultimately the fault of the the bankers' mismanagement and corruption of "our" financial and political systems. A peaceful society tends to have a majority of people with middle of the road political views. But start terrorizing it and the middle class gets split, to the far left and far right. These groups then fight and blame each other which takes the blame away from our leaders. "Divide and conquer".
    • Each hoax can be tailored to achieve other specific objectives. This one was to further the LGBT agenda.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 5:33am

    Reply to #40

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 321

    You Will Find A Good Reason For This

    The "ites" bloodlines were contaminated by Nephilim DNA – that's why there giants in those lands.  This had happened once before in Genesis 6 necessitating the destruction of almost all life on earth.  God had good reasons to mandate that action.  Read Genesis 6 – then read it again.  The implications are profound.

    Watch "The Age of Deceit".  It will also answer your illuminati questions.

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 7:27am

    Reply to #25

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Fake Carry Scene

    Doug,

    You are right. That first video doesn't prove anything. If you look at the second video in Time2Help's #85 post, you'll see something pretty bizarre. Watch it up to the 3 minute mark and you'll see the guy with the leg wound (and red shoes) who was carried by 2 people with 1 following closely. The editing wasn't cut on time for the live shot and they stopped carrying the "wounded" person. You can see the one in the black who was carrying the right side of the "victim" … only he isn't carrying anyone. He is smiling and jumps. Look toward the left of the frame and you'll see the red shoes on the sidewalk – no staggering or limping. He wasn't being carried. This may have been a staged reenactment for the camera, but it was pawned off as the real thing. This particular part was definitely FAKE. What else was? I'd say that the narrator of the first video got vindicated.

    I've been in a couple of serious vehicle accidents in my life with broken bones and a dislocated arm in one. Right after one accident, I could hear the broken bones in my shoulder grind, but I didn't feel any pain. After I moved out of harm's way, the pain hit with a vengeance. I've heard other people with similar experiences about pain immediately after an accident. It just gets blocked out for the time being.

    Given that pain phenomenon and seeing the guy in the red shoes with a shot leg, I could see that his mind could repress the pain until they were in a safe location. Being across the street a few blocks away, it was safe. Unless he were on strong pain killers (possibility) it would have been excruciating to be carried the way he was (he, himself, had to support the leg that was injured.) I thought that was odd when I saw the first video.

    I'm not ready to say that the whole event was staged, but this part definitely was. If the news crew knew it was a reenactment without telling us, that's tantamount to fraud. It sells a lot of commercials and it gets spun into a nice package that the Board of Directors want to promote. It obviously works … or they wouldn't do it.

    If it bleeds, it leads.

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 8:41am

    Reply to #39

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    neocons for LGBT?

    MarkBC-

    So this is the first time I've heard that the neocons want the LGBT agenda to get a boost.  How do the neocons benefit from that, again?  Gays win = neocons win?  And what's this LGBT agenda anyway?  Getting cakes baked for their gay marriages by evangelical bakeries?  That's sure worth 49 dead and 53 wounded.  A small price to pay to get cakes baked for them by the evangelicals.

    I guess we've lost flag burning, prayer in schools, and gay marriage as wedge issues, so we have to concoct ever-more-absurd new ones so people can remain distracted and upset.  War on Christmas is still here too, thank heaven.  That's a gift that just keeps giving.

    But I digress.

    I'm constantly confused as to who is pro-muslim and who is anti-muslim.  Obama is said to be a closet muslim, and yet he seems to support the neocon country-destroying agenda.  Somehow, closet-muslim Obama destroyed Syria and created all those migrants and refugees for…an anti-muslim agenda?  To destroy the EU?  A secret pro-muslim agenda?  Riddles wrapped in enigmas surrounded by a bodyguard of lies?

    And peace with Iran – was that closet-muslim Obama or neocon-muslim-hater Obama?  Certainly his actions paint him as a neocon-muslim-hater, but the Fox News talking points paint him as a closet-muslim-lover.   "He can't say the words 'radical Islam.'"  And not-destroying an Islamic country (for a change) would seem to support the closet-muslim title.  But then there is Syria and Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.  I'm so confused with the current set of narratives and how they all link up.

    Me, I think we should stop destroying their countries, but we should also be careful with the number we let into our own country, depending on which place they are coming from.  Unless they are refugees fleeing sharia law (perhaps they were an adulterer fleeing the country ahead of an actual stoning), I think we should be careful.  Does that make me a lover or a hater?  I don't know, you tell me.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 9:10am

    Reply to #40

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    very nicely put

    SP-

    Wow I have to say, that was very effectively put. 

    For a RED Meme society, the advancement to living by rules written in stone (BLUE) is a tremendous step forward.  Economic effectiveness, personal safety, the ability to do cooperative projects, etc.

    So initially the transition from RED to BLUE is an awesome step forward.

    Right!  That's why the laws written down turned into Holy Scripture – because they were shockingly superior to the horrid chaos that came before, so the rules (and the changes they accomplished) were venerated by that society.  Living in RED sucks if you aren't at the top of the heap, and even then, your time at the top is limited.  Living in BLUE is substantially better for a much larger fraction of the population – as long as you aren't an "out group" of course whom God has decreed must be killed to the last man, woman, and child.  And that in turn makes that society far more productive – maybe even "the local winner" because a BLUE society probably has a competitive advantage over RED neighbors.  Everyone is more bought in.

    I'm going to go a step further.  The arrival of Jesus could only have happened in the (relatively) peaceful and tolerant society constructed by the Romans.  Romans didn't wipe societies out to the last man based on religious differences – they allowed everyone to keep their God (or Gods) and worship as they pleased.  Religious tolerance, imagine that?  So Jesus and his seditious message of peace and love could flourish only in that setting.  The message (and the messenger) was effectively protected by the armed might of the Roman Empire.  Had this message appeared at the time of Moses, it would have simply been laughed out of existence.

    I suppose everything has its proper time and place.

    What color were the Romans?  For their time, they definitely had science – so did the Greeks.  They didn't have any holy books, but they did have laws.  And philosophy.  I think they were a step above BLUE, at least for a time anyway.  But if you rebelled against Rome, your entire city might get tossed right into slavery…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 11:17am

    Reply to #40

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 836

    if I understand Roman history correctly,

    Even in the early days of the Latin league, while the Jews were still in the Babylonian captivity, Rome was past blue into orange… making and breaking treaties as desired to get control.
    They definitely used blue — which orange will do — but they also used red and green. They definiely used beige.

    I’m going to name early Rome as orange. Late Rome? Possibly holistic, merging into the Ottoman empire.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 19, 2016 - 12:53pm

    #42

    KugsCheese

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 821

    The Violence of Jesus

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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 5:21am

    #43

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Outrageous

    The Obama administration, under the influence of Islamic apologists and propagandists (ie. Muslim Brotherhood), have decided that "real" Muslims who understand the Koran correctly don't commit terrorist acts.  So when they do, the Administration and POTUS refuse to acknowledge it and engage in all kinds of verbal/logical gymnastics to obfuscate the obvious connections.

    Now the DOJ is going to release partial transcripts of the shooter's conversations with police negotiators but only after heavily redacting them to remove all references to ISIS, Islam, the Koran, etc.  Outrageous! Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" prophecy has been fulfilled in the DOJ in 2016.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-19/doj-will-censor-all-references-islamic-terrorism-orlando-911-call-transcripts

    In the ongoing war of words between president Obama on one hand, who has repeatedly said that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was "self-radicalized" and was not influenced by Islamic elements, and Donald Trump prominently on the other, where the Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly alleged that Mateen's actions were provoked by "radicalized Islam" which has prompted Trump to renew his calls for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants as well as profiling Muslims already in the US, it appears that the president is about to get some much needed help from none other than the Department of Justice, which will step into the debate, by releasing Mateen's 911 transcripts however only after heavy edits which censor and remove all references to Islamic terrorism.

    As RealClearPolitics writes, in an interview conducted earlier today with NBC's Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that on Monday the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage. One minor matter: the transcripts will be heavily edited.

    "What we're not going to do is further proclaim this man's pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda," Lynch said.

    "We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State]." Why: so Obama's statement that he was "self-radicalized"

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 10:02am

    Reply to #43

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    story alignment

    Tom-

    So while I believe in the whole bit about Israel being an undeclared 51st state of the US (a friend of mine roughly described it that way over dinner last night), I'm not sure how Obama's actions when taken as a whole lend credence to him being a tool (or under the sway of) the Muslim Brotherhood.  That particular group won an election in Egypt, but now they are quite out of power.  Morsi even got the death penalty.  If that's support, I'd hate to see opposition.

    Plus, if you drag up the whole neocon influence in Washington (which seems undeniable given the Clinton email Chris referenced), I don't see how the serial destruction of all these states could possibly support a charge of "support for Muslim Brotherhood."

    I suspect it is a result of a deliberate policy to continue to support "moderate Islam."  Each religion, as far as I can see, has different branches with varying levels of conformity to the rules set down in ancient scripture: Judaism has three branches I know of: Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox.  Reform is the most liberal: "emphasizes the evolving nature of the religion, the superiority of its ethical aspects compared to the ceremonial ones, and a belief in a continuous revelation not centered on the theophany at Mt Sinai."  Orthodox, on the other hand, "teaches strict adherence to rabbinical interpretation of Jewish law and its traditional observances. There are more than 600 rules governing religious and everyday life."  Oh dear.  I think I'd pick "reform".  Evolving sounds survival-positive.  But I digress.

    Does Islam have such branches too?  Presumably they do.  They may not be this formal.  But I have a sense that the application of the original Islamic rulebook to everyday life varies greatly throughout the world.  There are 500 million people of Islamic faith.  If only 100 million of them subscribe to the particularly strict interpretation, maybe its wiser for us to remain friends (or at least, not-enemies) with the other 400 million?

    Perhaps "they" don't trust Americans with nuance, and in truth, we aren't particularly good at it.  How many people know about the different branches of Judaism and what they mean?  If you aren't in the community, you probably don't pay any attention.  I've heard the names before, but I didn't know the specifics until I looked them up.

    Regardless, we should definitely differentiate between the different approaches throughout the world.  Maybe "they" should not be afraid to have an adult conversation about all of it with us?

    But – you can't subscribe to the theory "neocons control everything" and at the same time, accuse Obama of being a closet muslim apologist.  I don't see how those two things fit together.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 2:24pm

    #44

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    It's for your safety

     
     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 2:29pm

    Reply to #44

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    guns at clubs

    So I have to say, I would not feel safer if I knew that half the club was carrying.  You do realize most people drink a fair amount and/or are high at these places.  Armed, intoxicated people don't make me feel more secure, they make me feel less secure.

    Its one of those "odds" things.  Odds are, I'd be more likely to be shot as a side effect of someone else's stupid fight from a stray bullet vs my chances of being saved by an armed, drunk patron at a mass casualty event.

    Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  Sure you feel better carrying your gun, but the rest of the country will be there too, and they're a bunch of drunk, stupid idiots.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 3:20pm

    Reply to #44

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4504

    No, definitely not safer....

    [quote=davefairtex]

    Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  Sure you feel better carrying your gun, but the rest of the country will be there too, and they're a bunch of drunk, stupid idiots.

    [/quote]
    Speaking of which, I am sooOOOooo glad this particular Florida woman was not and presumably is not an armed individual.

    Seen here, she confronts a Brazilian comedy team who were setting up for a shoot….for being Middle Eastern, gay, terrorists…and she's not phased in the slightest from her diatribe when they tell here where they are from.  All the same to this woman….darkies!

    Pure comedy gold, in a very sad, pathetic, uniquely 'Murican way.

    🙁

    How do I feel about this woman being armed and drunk in a nightclub?  Not very good.  How about 25 people just like her?  Even worse.

    Sadly, in a crowd of 500 at a nightclub there are certainly (at least) 25 people 'operating' at this mental and emotional capacity.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 4:15pm

    #45

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    In da club

    Did I miss something in the article recommending guns in clubs? I’ve always been partial to the don’t drink and drive approach (don’t drink and pack heat). That being said, you think the gang bangers over in booth 4 ain’t packin’?
    Really?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 4:34pm

    Reply to #45

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    recommendations

    Did I miss something in the article recommending guns in clubs? I've always been partial to the don't drink and drive approach (don't drink and pack heat).

    Well there ya go.  No need to refer to the article – you just made that recommendation right now.  And its exactly that recommendation I'm talking about.

    You may be sober as a judge and as responsible as they come, but the rest of the country is full of drunk & stupid idiots.  Its them I don't want armed-while-intoxicated.

    Policy has to make sense when applied to the person of average intelligence and responsibility.  They won't be sober, and they may not even know how to shoot accurately.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 5:10pm

    Reply to #45

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2225

    Agreed in principle, but...

    [quote=davefairtex]

    Did I miss something in the article recommending guns in clubs? I've always been partial to the don't drink and drive approach (don't drink and pack heat).

    Policy has to make sense when applied to the person of average intelligence and responsibility.  They won't be sober, and they may not even know how to shoot accurately.

     

    [/quote]

    Do you think the gang bangers in booth 4 give a shit about policy?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - 6:36pm

    Reply to #45

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    gang bangers

    So I avoid the problem: I don't go to clubs that have gang bangers.

    If you want to go hang out with them…sure, everyone has guns, every problem devolves into a gunfight, hopefully the people packing aren't so drunk they shoot up everyone else by mistake, and…that's why I avoid those places.

    Am I cheating?  Or just being wise?

    Policy = "metal detectors at the entrance".

    Nothing is risk free – knives are quite dangerous at close quarters, but … much less chance of an drunken armed idiot hurting a bystander by mistake with a knife.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 22, 2016 - 5:00pm

    #46

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Mainstream Islam and homosexuality

    Mainstream Islam is extremely anti-homosexuality.  It's not just the "extremists," though it is only a few Muslim states that actually execute homosexuals (Iran, Saudi, ISIS).  However, an open homosexual can easily succumb to mob violence in many Muslim majority countries and the government will reliably not charge anyone with a crime (Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc).  The Orlando shooter was only unusual because he murdered homosexuals in a country that is minority Muslim and he took the mainstream teachings of Islam and enforced them personally.

    At the same time, Muslims in non-Muslim Western countries are agitating for restrictions on free speech that accord with Sharia law but violate the US Constitution and most other Western governing documents  (Under Sharia, you can't say anything critical of Allah, Muhammad, or Islam or in any way hurt the feelings of Muslims. The punishments include death.) Under misguided attempts to be open and welcoming, Western governments are violating their own laws and values regarding free speech to accomodate Muslim agitators.  Check this out from my second favorite country (Canada).  Then weep.

    http://www.therebel.media/hate_speech_against_gays_in_to_muslim_preacher_with_pa_system_on_street

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 25, 2016 - 5:26am

    #47

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1837

    EMT at Orlando Hospital Confirms Lots of People Shot

    A personal friend who is a nurse in my ED posted a link on facebook about the ED staff at Orlando Regional Medical Center.  It in turn was posted by a guy (Vincent White) who works there as an EMT.  I IM'ed him to ask him what he actually saw.

    He responded:

     

    It was real and it did happen. I was pulling dead bodies out of the back of pick up trucks at the hospital. We have a 6 bed trauma room and pts were in and out of that room

    Going to the OR, or people who were stable enough to wait were moved to a less acute area. People who were dead got moved to our Decon showers because we had no where else to put them

    Yes the shooting actually happened.

    This seem pretty strong to me.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 25, 2016 - 7:14am

    #48
    TechGuy

    TechGuy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 13 2008

    Posts: 295

    Night Clubs not the safest places

    There have been numberous incidents of mass deaths at night clubs. I am sure Orlando won't be the last.

    Don't need firearms to commit mass murder at a night club:

    At least 96 killed in nightclub inferno

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/21/deadly.nightclub.fire/

    87 people killed in the Bronx’s Happy Land Social Club blaze

    http://www.jems.com/articles/2015/02/nyc-marks-25th-anniversary-tragic-social.html

    "In a rage, he returned just after 3 a.m., splashing gasoline on Happy Land's only exit and lighting two matches. Then he pulled down the metal front gate. Within minutes, 87 people were dead."

     

    As far as Gun control. it simply doesn't work.The regions with the strongest gun control laws always have the highest gun violence. Gun laws only remove guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals always find a way and exploit gun laws for their advantage. In Mexico there is a total ban on gun for private citizens. howeve it hasn't stopped the drug cartels, gangs, etcfrom acquiring them. Criminals are more likely to take advantage we they are disarmed. Criminals are unlike to engage people if they believe they can fight back. Even in the disarmed UK, a disturbed man was able to acquire a handgun and shoot MP Jo Cox.

    Chris wrote:

    " I am sooOOOooo glad this particular Florida woman was not and presumably is not an armed individual."

    I suspect that she is probably armed. She is definately disturbed, but probably isn't going to become violent. She could have easy just run them down in her car. You dont need a firearm to kill. Its very possible to kill many people without a gun (see story above, about man killing 87 with some gasoline). Its probably better that she verbally unloads. The person's that usually commit mass murder are usually the silent ones that let their angry build up until the go bererk. 

    Sadly we are likely to see significantly more violent behaviour in the USA. The economy is terrible and Washington DC has virtually pulled out all of the stops and excerbating social and economic issues. Whether is gender, race, immigration. Whatever actions the gov't takes always has the opposite affect. For instance Obama is the Gun salesman of the century. Gun stores and manufactures can't keep up with demand. Washington has done everything to exploit these tragic events and have solved absolutely nothing. 

    Politicians aren't interested in fixing any problems. The just want to make headlines and get more people to vote for them, period. 

    We should have done more effort in mential illness. For the most part in the USA, the preferred treatment option is cheap SSRI drugs. The previous two mass shooters (Adam Lanza and James Holmes) were both taking SSRI drugs.I suspect had they not been prescribed SSRI drugs they would have not commited any mass murders. Both the Gov't and big pharma have colluded together in a coverup to hide the link between violent behavior and SSRI drugs.

    I believe there has been some information indicating the the Orlando shooter may have been taking SSRI drugs too. The problem is that the gov't and big pharma are colluding to prevent the public learning about SSRI drugs so its very difficult to get the facts.

    The USA has a presciption drugs, and doctors push them for ever illness. For instance, a couple of years ago I had a bout of food poisoning, whcih took a few days to pass and effected my heart rhythm. I went to a cartologist and gastrologist to make sure there wasn't any damage that could be long term or permanent. All they want to do is push drugs. Of course I refused to take any prescribtions they recommended. 

    The economic problems and social agitation cause by the media & by the gov't, is pushing more people into anxiety. They go to the doctor, seeking treatment in a Pill and blindly start taking prescription drugs without understanding the side effects or risks. They feel bad and want an instant fix and are always mentally compromised. Mental illness Drugs treat the symptoms and not the cause. In perhaps 1 in 25K to 50K patients, SSRI drugs alter the person's presonality that leads to violent behavoir.

    Antidepressant drugs can cause violent behavior.

    New Study Confirms What CCHR Has Said for Decades—Antidepressants Cause Violence

    "SSRIs, a “black box” warning for suicidal ideation and behavior finally was issued on all antidepressants. Yet the connection to violence and homicide continued to be ignored. To this day, despite 22 warnings on psychiatric drugs causing violence from international drug regulatory agencies, and despite the fact that t least 35 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 169 wounded and 79 killed, the FDA has never issued black box warnings on antidepressant drugs causing violence."

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 25, 2016 - 12:19pm

    #49

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Orlando cops ordered to stand down!

    Officer Brandon Cornwell of the Belle Isle, FL police department recently made a statement offering some disturbing insight into why police waited three hours to assault the Orlando shooter in the bathroom after initially engaging him in gun battle from the opening seconds of his hateful attack.  Officer Cornwell was so close to the Pulse nightclub that he arrived 38 seconds after the first officer's call for help went out over police radio.  

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/confirmed-orlando-cops-told-to-stand-down-not-to-pursue-shooter-for-15-20-minutes_062016

    Officer Cornwell initially grabbed his own rifle and with six other officers who also arrived in less than 3 minutes formed a contact team to find and kill the shooter.  Officer Cornwell, an Orlando PD Lieutenant (the highest ranking officer on the scene early on), and five other officers broke a window and climbed into the building and onto the dance floor where the shooting had begun.  Cornwell reports it was dark and chaotic, and they couldn't see where the shooter was but they heard gunfire and screams.  He states they moved to the sounds of the gunfire and in short order the shooter moved into the bathroom (where he reportedly continued shooting).  It's at that point that the disturbing fact was revealed: a high ranking commander who was not on location but enroute and listening on police radio ordered the seven officer contact team not to assault the shooter, but to stand down and wait for SWAT to arrive.  Cornwell stated they went outside and waited 15-20 minutes or more for SWAT to arrive.  It wasn't until about three hours later, at about 5:00 am, that SWAT made a dynamic entry and killed the shooter.  By then, everyone in the bathroom was dead except one person who was covered by bodies and not clearly visible to the shooter.  No doubt, injured Pulse patrons bled to death during the three hour delay.

    Here are the main issues:

    1.  Since Columbine where police followed standard procedure at that time for barricaded shooters, police nationwide have developed new policies and tactics to cope with the new phenomenon of active shooters.  Instead of containing the barricaded shooter and negotiating with him to give up, police have been trained to form a contact team of at least four officers to go immediately to confront the active shooter and kill him.  The key difference between a barricaded gunman and an active shooter is that the active shooter is still shooting and has more victims he can access to keep shooting.  A barricaded gunman is no longer shooting.  So it would be proper procedure if the shooter stopped shooting once he barricaded himself in the bathroom NOT to assault him.  But if he was still shooting people in the bathroom, the proper procedure would be to go in and get him.  When was the order given to stand down in reference to when the shooter quit shooting?  Had the situation morphed into a barricade situation or was it still and active shooter?

    2.  Who was this commander who gave the order to stand down?  What was his/her exact order?  (Did the order include withdrawing from the building?)   When was the order given: was the shooter still shooting or had he stopped?  (Unless there's a very Nixonian gap in the police radio recordings, we'll eventually find this information out.)

    3.  We had this same issue happen in a recent active shooter in my city.  A very high ranking commander who was not present but listening to the radio while driving to the scene, ordered the contact team not to engage the shooter while she was still shooting and had access to a factory full of more victims.  This was a violation of our local policy and national training.  We were reminded in the aftermath of this event that the on scene incident commander is completely in charge of police response at the active shooter scene until s/he is relieved on location by a higher ranking officer and that higher ranking officer is briefed on the situation.  No matter their rank, commanders who are not physically on location and haven't been briefed cannot give orders over the radio to the officers who are on location.  This is exactly what happened in Orlando.  The Orlando PD Lieutenant was the highest ranking officer on location and should have disregarded the orders received over radio from a higher ranking commander.  The Lieutenant should have assaulted the shooter if that's what s/he thought was the right tactic at the moment.  I expect that there will be great efforts to protect whoever gave the orders to stand down over the radio, either by burying the issue or by explaining away the order to make it seem reasonable.  Even if the order might have been correct because the situation had changed from an active shooter to a barricaded gunman, the order should not have been given over the radio.

    4.  Once the shooter was cornered in the bathroom by the contact team, they should've covered the door to keep him from leaving the bathroom from that one entrance/exit.  By backing out of the building, the contact team effectively surrendered the whole night club back to the shooter instead of keeping him pinned down in the bathroom where he was much less dangerous to continue killing.  If the contact team had kept the shooter bottled up in the bathroom that would've created time and space to evacuate wounded patrons from the club.  Undoubtedly, there were wounded people in the club who bled to death in the three hours it took to kill the shooter and begin evacuating the wounded from the various places where they lay in the building.  If even one person died in the club during the three hour delay, that commander who gave the order to stand down is going to be in deep doo-doo.

    More:

    http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/florida-playbook/2016/06/murphy-chases-black-vote-with-obama-ad-expert-orlando-police-failed-at-pulse-sen-evers-targets-voters-with-ar-15-giveaway-jolly-poll-im-beating-crist-214891

    — POLICE RADIO TRAFFIC: What were police saying and doing? Who gave what orders and when? Here’s why it’s important: police officers MADE IT INSIDE THE CLUB. But then they RETREATED. Why? Who gave that order? What was the risk-assessment math? THREE HOURS AFTER the shooting started, 49 people were dead along with the shooter; 53 wounded. Every second counted. Mateen had HOURS. The wounded didn’t.

    PROTOCOL FAIL? – After the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, law enforcement realized active shooters have to be stopped quickly, not bargained with or given time. That realization gave rise to what’s called the Active Shooter response protocol, which basically says that once two police officers are on scene at an active shooting, they should go get the shooter, said Chris Grollneck, a former police officer and expert on the subject. Police everywhere are trained in it. By 2:15 a.m. June 12 – 13 minutes after Orlando PD issued an All Call Major Alert — 11 officers were at the club after Mateen had exchanged gunfire with one off-duty cop working Pulse security, according to this excellent Miami Herald timeline. Mateen was, by definition, an active shooter. Yet somehow, officers either didn’t pursue Mateen into the club or they were pulled out.

    PROTOCOL SWITCH? – Police have explained that they switched from an active-shooter protocol to dealing with a barricaded person, so they decided not to pursue. Grollneck says that makes no sense because the shooter had already shown he’s a homicidal maniac who would systematically kill. In the end, SWAT stormed the building anyway. But it was three hours later. And some people probably bled out while waiting for help. Grollneck said it should have ended much earlier:

    “If you have 300 people inside a club. It’s dark. There’s loud music and you can’t see but you know there’s people screaming and somebody shooting, you follow the muzzle flash until you hit that person and make the muzzle flash stop –at the peril of your own risk. Being a policeman is a dangerous job. That’s why they give policemen guns. Everybody inside that club did not have a gun. When the police were ordered out, no one had a gun except the gunman. And he then systematically shot people … while making phone calls and posting to social media and sending text messages.”

    LEADERSHIP ‘FAILED’ – Asked what the 911 calls from the patrons and the police radio traffic would tell us, Grollneck said: “It will tell you the leadership of the Orlando Police Department failed the people inside the club.” Q: do you think that’s why Orlando is not releasing the info? Grollneck: “I do. I think Orlando Police Department’s Swat Team is one of the best in the country and the patrol is one of the best-trained in the country… this was risk-adversity by supervisors. And I think it was career apprehension.”

    THE BOMB TALK – The blood hadn’t yet dried on that hot Sunday morning when politicians began praising Orlando PD. And quickly the department and the politicians began explaining that police thought Mateen had explosives. But that might be an after-the-fact justification (we don’t know because this info has not been made public). Initially, some officers were actually following protocol and were in the club. Also, Grollneck said, the FBI’s “Coming Storm” training video for police released last year doesn’t tell officers to refrain from going after an active shooter if they think there’s a bomb. Grollneck one last time:

    — “Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. There’s reports the guy has a suicide vest or possible bombs. Now we know it’s a terrorist attack … what’s the No. 1 threat from a terrorist? It’s a weapon of mass destruction, a WMD. So if you think a terrorist is there with a WMD in a nightclub with 300 people, do you not go in to give him time to activate the bomb that could kill 100,000 people outside? Or do you go in and take the chance immediately at the risk of 300 people?”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 26, 2016 - 1:51am

    Reply to #49
    MarkM

    MarkM

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 22 2008

    Posts: 347

    Thanks thc

    …for the info on Cornwell and his buddies.  Shame on the officer for telling them to stand down. He will have to live with that decision.

    I always look back at the tower shooting in my home state and gauge other responses by the heroic action of those that ended that tragedy. Get on the stairway and walk up knowing that it will be do or die when the door opens at the top.

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

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 12:57pm

    Reply to #46

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    agitators, etc

    Tom-

    Sorry for the delay in responding.  BRExit sucked up all my attention.  🙂

    So I have to say, I've heard that exact same sort of dialog from some "Christians" here in the US.  Hmm.  In fact, let me dig one up…yes.  WAPO had the link:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/

    So.  I'm definitely in favor of bringing in people who are tolerant.  I'd prefer not to have any more people like either this guy, or the Muslim agitator you referred to in your post.

    I've always felt that Christian and Muslim "extremists" (i.e. those in favor of a literal interpretation of punishments from the various "Holy" sources) were disagreeable people that I didn't really want to associate with, and the thought of bringing more of them in seemed like a bad idea.

    I do think there are currently more Muslims that focus on the "old style law" than Christians that take the same approach, but that's more about people than it is about the book they like.

    From a practical standpoint, if we took a poll of evangelicals, how do you think they'd vote if asked, "should gay sex be illegal?  Same question re: adultery, which in many versions of Islamic law is more or less the same crime: "sex outside marriage."  Hmm.  Turns out, in 23 states, adultery IS illegal.  That pretty much answers that.  http://www.omgfacts.com/news/7555/Adultery-is-illegal-in-23-states.  And those conservative Christian politicians?

    … Santorum has said Americans don't have a constitutional right to sexual freedom and, taking it step further, singled out adultery, polygamy, bestiality, and homosexuality as immoral acts that should be regulated by the federal government.

    Sounds mainstream Muslim to me.  Santorum wasn't specific about punishment.  Kind of like the Koran.

    How much daylight between conservative Christian and mainstream Muslim view on government regulating our personal lives?  From my perspective, not much.  And if they were in complete control of the country, I suspect our evangelical friends would happily impose prison terms (just like their mainstream Muslim counterparts) to dissuade people from such a sinful lifestyle choice.

    So in that sense, they'd be "mainstream Muslim" in their approach.

    So where does that leave us?

    Again, people who take uncritical guidance from Holy Scripture about what's ok and what's not can end up being really disagreeable company if they feel they have the right (and/or duty) to impose their beliefs on everyone else.  Bringing in such people can cause big problems.  If you get a test to weed out "mainstream Muslims", I'd also like a test to weed out conservative Christians, since they'd do pretty much the same thing if they got into power.

    Sound good?  🙂

    [p.s. I am sensitive to your argument that mainstream Muslims are given a pass on their anti-gay (and anti-other-stuff) views by Dems, while conservative Christians are not.  It definitely appears to be true, from what I can tell.  Ever since you brought it up, I've noticed it more.]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 27, 2016 - 6:36pm

    Reply to #46

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1435

    Islam is a complete religious, legal and political system

    Dave,

    It is a common attitude among "enlightened" people that the world's religions are all basically the same and are all leading us to the same God (to the extent they're helpful at all!).  I'd love to get you to see that Islam is QUITE different.  Islam is a complete religious, legal and political system with the ultimate goal of dominating the whole world religiously, legally, politically and militarily.  It's not just a religion.  And that's not just me saying that.  That's the most educated, most respected and most numerous Muslim leaders of the last 1,400 years.  I don't see that, even in rudimentary form, in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, animism, or anything else.

    Islam has a highly developed legal system that rivals jurisprudence in any complex Western society.  They have developed over the course of 1,400 years a whole legal system dedicated to enacting their religious texts in everyday life and law.  They have legal scholars, "law" schools, and court precedents that serve as final arbiters of what the various verses in their three written authorities mean (just like we in the US have a court system that goes from local to the Supreme Court).  Whole nation states have in their founding and governing documents statements that Sharia is the supreme law of their land and no law may be written or enforced that is contrary to Sharia, and all of what's in the Sharia shall be enforced in every day life.  National laws, policies and actions flow from this.  I don't see that in any other country with any other religion.

    Except perhaps for Israel as a Jewish state, you won't find any nations whose founding and governing documents say anything vaguely resembling that about Christian law (or any other body of religious law).  First of all, there is no body of Christian law that a country's laws could be subservient to.  Yes, there are values and laws that believers apply to themselves and wish the world would adopt, but from the time of Jesus on these have not been codified as civil law, though it's clear that Christians have attempted and in many ways succeeded in influencing civil law.  You can see that in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution: there are Christian values behind the scenes of both documents and some vague, general statements about the Creator but there is absolutely no statement of any kind indicating that Christian law is the supreme law of the land nor do Christian theologians serve as the Supreme Court.  Second, you will also not find in Christianity any codified mission statements indicating that the goal of the faith is to conquer the world and impose Christianity on any who resist, though there is a clear desire to persuade people to come around to the personal faith of the Bible.  Never is violence or coercion part of the plan as it is and has been in Islam from Muhammad himself.  In fact, in the New Testament the prediction is that the end of history will include the near complete destruction of Christianity by "the world" until Jesus returns to set things right.  Christians never imagine they will rule the world, but that they will be saved from utter destruction by Jesus ruling the world at the time of his choosing.

    So when you say this, I have to object:

    How much daylight between conservative Christian and mainstream Muslim view on government regulating our personal lives?  From my perspective, not much.  And if they were in complete control of the country, I suspect our evangelical friends would happily impose prison terms (just like their mainstream Muslim counterparts) to dissuade people from such a sinful lifestyle choice.

    Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists do have some unpleasant characteristics in common of which we could do with much less of.  But that glosses over a MAJOR fact of life: when a Christian fundamentalist kills an abortion provider it's international news and widely condemned in the Christian community (and prosecuted under the law of the land) because it is so rare and contrary to what most people (believers and unbelievers) would agree is foundational Christian morality.  However, when Muslim jihadists self-consciously attempting to advance the cause of Allah kill 49 patrons at a club or 15 soldiers at Ft. Hood or thousands with airliners as weapons they are celebrated by many in the Muslim umma/community.  Such acts of Islamic jihad are preceded and inspired by many calls to exactly such actions by leading Muslim scholars and leaders, and celebrated afterwards by the same Muslim leaders and the Muslim street.  Training, funding and equipping jihadists actions are often provided by Islamic institutions and even nation states.  Western governments are fond of saying those "violent extremists" don't understand their own religion so it's wrong to call it Islamic terrorism.  But all who say that have to disregard hundreds of passages in their religious texts and mainstream, literal Islam over the last 1,400 years.  Acts of Islamic jihad are so common and growing in frequency precisely because the practioners are taught that they are the true Muslims.  We don't have to decide whether or not jihadis are true to Islam or not, but we do have to accept the fact that THEY THINK they are!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 28, 2016 - 4:09am

    Reply to #46

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Online)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3109

    church & state

    Tom-

    First let me agree with you – Islam in general does not believe in the separation of Church & State.  Church and state are unified.  This disagrees with a fundamental tenet of current western civ.  If Islam becomes the dominant religion, then the people will end up voting for a state which draws its laws from that religion.  One might argue that we do this as well, we just hide it better.  Or – as you put it – there's no explicit linkage, just an implicit one.  But those two things are a difference, I will agree with you, and Islam did come from a tradition of conquest.  That is true also.  They are definitely not "the same."

    Now then, I actually chose my words fairly carefully when I wrote the following.  Let me put some bold around the significant bits and see that helps to clarify:

    How much daylight between conservative Christian and mainstream Muslim view on government regulating our personal lives?  From my perspective, not much.

    It is my belief that conservative Christians would be just as happy to pass religious-based laws as the mainstream Muslims do in their countries.  Laws against adultery, against sex outside of marriage, against particular sex acts they don't happen to approve of, against homosexual conduct, possibly against drug or alcohol use (prohibition!), and so on.  "For the good of society" – based on their religious convictions.  Whether this desire to pass these laws comes from a 1400 year Islamic theological/legal tradition or they pull it out of their own … Christian traditions, the effect on others is the same.  Same laws pop out, same acts become illegal, and the state is once again punishing behavior between consenting adults.  To those at the sticky end of these fun new laws, there does not appear to be a lot of difference in the outcome.

    Now then, I will definitely agree that the Muslim people who want to institute specifically harsh punishments dictated by Sharia law as interpreted by places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and ISIS, fall far outside these two groups.  And there are a fairly large number of these people; they certainly aren't the majority, but it is still an uncomfortably large number.

    These days, conservative Christians and conservative Muslims have a wide gap between them.  In some sense, it takes a "conservative Muslim" to show us all just how reasonable the conservative Christians really are.

    But as I said before – conservative Christians and mainstream Muslims would probably vote to pass a very similar set laws.  They would agree on the specific laws a lot more than they'd disagree.  That's just my opinion as someone who looks more at effects than causes.

    Does that make sense?

    Login or Register to post comments

Login or Register to post comments