LAX Shooting Conspiracy Theories - Los Angeles Airport - False Flag Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
You need a specification for fascism.

According to someone giving the tricky work of defining "fascism" a go here Alex Jones is "in many ways" a fascist. Or something like that. I'm not sure how someone condemning corporatism and Globalism Inc. constantly or a civil libertarian that seems to see fascists around every corner when a policeman so much as passes gas is a fascist. Or is someone that will somehow be able to create fascist structures and organizations when their entire mentality is anti-fascist.

If Jones is a fascist then he's never going to get anywhere if he doesn't stop criticizing state and corporate power structures instead of partnering with them or trying to create lists for the DHS like the SPLC does. (Not to mention that Jones would need financing from central bankers and he'd need to be able to work with the military industrial complex instead of criticizing them all the time too.)

I'm not sure how this whole process of trying to define Jones as a fascist works in reality. Perhaps the term fascist is just a subjective stigma word devoid of facts for most people... it would be ironic if progressives full of the hopium and change of Obama Inc. thought of civil libertarians as being "fascists," in any event.

Alex Jones is a paleoconservative. He at times tries to pass off as a libertarian, but that really is untrue.
 
No.

Either the acceptor or forum must posit some symptoms, before I will take the bet.

By my analysis we are already there.

Bugger. I thought that you'd be paying the 1000n and I'd be paying the 1n. Still, I don't have to pay 1000n if fascism doesn't arrive until I agree it hasn't arrived. Fair enough.
 
No offense, but your sentiments towards Snowden seem to come out of spite.
I mean, the NSA spying issue is clearly a big deal. Everyone has their own opinions on it, but it's hard to defend their actions when they clearly overstep their bounds. It's one thing to collect data relevant to, say, terrorist activity overseas or domestic terrorist activity, but of course that would have to be with reasonable intelligence in the first place. To collect all sorts of data from everyone is itself a huge overreach, let alone the individual cases of abuse of that data that have popped up since.
I thank Snowden. We need more guys like him, willing to expose corruption. If what the NSA was doing was in fact only collecting information on cases they had evidence for links to terrorism on, then great, that's classified, not our business. But that clearly wasn't the case.

I thought it's always been pretty well known that the NSA was listening in on everything for years.
 
You're too focused on the individual releasing the information and not the information itself. If they expose corruption, then bravo. Forget their motives.

So if they were covering it and going along with it until they didn't get that raise, they're still A-OK?
 
I thought it's always been pretty well known that the NSA was listening in on everything for years.
So it's ALWAYS been known for years? I'm sorry, that needs to be reworded to make sense.
I've known about the NSA spying since about 2005 or 2006. I'm not sure exactly when it became public knowledge. But it doesn't seem that long in my lifetime.

Did you know Snowden revealed the US spied on 35 world leaders?
Can I just go snoop on 35 of my neighbors, just to get the upper hand on them? Not that I would ever do something like that, but it's sad to know I live in a country who's leaders feel it's necessary to do that.
 
You said:



There is plenty of coverage of what was exposed.
Here's a more appropriate example: People conditioned to think of whistleblowers as traitors.

I didn't mean to go on a tangent about the media. My point was corporate media does not have your (public) interest at heart and thus it's more important for them to twist the information to align with their agendas rather provide you with the truth.
 
Last edited:
So it's ALWAYS been known for years? I'm sorry, that needs to be reworded to make sense.
I've known about the NSA spying since about 2005 or 2006. I'm not sure exactly when it became public knowledge. But it doesn't seem that long in my lifetime.

Did you know Snowden revealed the US spied on 35 world leaders?
Can I just go snoop on 35 of my neighbors, just to get the upper hand on them? Not that I would ever do something like that, but it's sad to know I live in a country who's leaders feel it's necessary to do that.
And you don't think that other countries are spying on us?

Can you really equate your relationship with your neighbors with that of world affairs?
 
We have one guy in prison that gave secrets to Isreal. Yes, even friendly countries spy on each other. I really get tired of folks acting like a scene in Casablanca


Renault: Everybody is to leave here immediately! This cafe is closed until further notice. Clear the room, at once!
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Employee of Rick's: [hands Renault money] Your winnings, sir.
Renault: Oh, thank you, very much. Everybody out at once![ex/]

They knew, we knew, I was not surprised.
Content from External Source
 
Why should organisations involved with national security be above taken to task for corruption? I'd say that anyone tasked to protect the people should be above board at all times.
Because when you are dealing with national security you need to make sure that in your zealousness to oust corruption you don't more damage than you do good.
 
So it's ALWAYS been known for years? I'm sorry, that needs to be reworded to make sense.
I've known about the NSA spying since about 2005 or 2006. I'm not sure exactly when it became public knowledge. But it doesn't seem that long in my lifetime.

Did you know Snowden revealed the US spied on 35 world leaders?
Can I just go snoop on 35 of my neighbors, just to get the upper hand on them? Not that I would ever do something like that, but it's sad to know I live in a country who's leaders feel it's necessary to do that.
Don't be naive. Counties spy on both their allies and their enemies on a regular basis.
 
Here's a more appropriate example: People conditioned to think of whistleblowers as traitors.
Technically most whistle blowers are traitors because they have betrayed the trust put in them by their employers and, when they are with the government, oaths they took when accepting their position. When you get a national security clearance you sign paperwork explaining just what your responsibilities are for access to secret data and just what the potential penalties are if you expose that information.
 
So it's ALWAYS been known for years? I'm sorry, that needs to be reworded to make sense.
I've known about the NSA spying since about 2005 or 2006. I'm not sure exactly when it became public knowledge. But it doesn't seem that long in my lifetime.

Did you know Snowden revealed the US spied on 35 world leaders?
Can I just go snoop on 35 of my neighbors, just to get the upper hand on them? Not that I would ever do something like that, but it's sad to know I live in a country who's leaders feel it's necessary to do that.


IT's been known publicly for years. Not sure why you think my previous comment did not make sense. If you and/or I have known since 2005, how was it not public knowledge? I'm not privy to secret information, are you?

Don't you think other countries do the same to us? Don't you think they infiltrate our country? Remember the 9/11 flying lessons? I'll ignore the neighbor comment, that is hardly an anaolgy.
 
Both the NSA and the FBI have been involved in domestic surveillance since their creation (remember all the crap that came out during the Church Committee?). Their scope used to be limited to be limited to specific individuals and organizations by the technology available. Widespread domestic spying using computers, the internet, and associated technologies has be discussed publicly by privacy advocates since at least the Clinton Administration. It may not be the right thing to do but its definitely nothing new.
 
And you don't think that other countries are spying on us?
Monkey see monkey do? You're really going to try to justify us spying on countries because they are probably doing it to us? That's great. It really is. So other groups of people send terrorists over here to blow us up. Should we do that to them? Ohh yeah, we already do...
No, you're right, countries don't need some moral standard like individuals do. It's a do-as-you-see-fit kind of situation.

Can you really equate your relationship with your neighbors with that of world affairs?
Why not? On a small scale, we're just like little tiny countries trying to get by. We form friendships, sometimes we don't get along, but at the end of the day we're just people. Just like the US and other countries.
 
Monkey see monkey do? You're really going to try to justify us spying on countries because they are probably doing it to us?
No, I'm talking about the real world - Not the idealistic one you seem to think exist. I justify it the way every other country justifies it. Know what's going on in other governments can be used to enhance your own security. It also provides insights into the motivations of other government, helps to predict how they will react to events, and can prevent misunderstandings that lead to conflicts. Espionage serves a number of purposes in the real world and not all of them are ill intentioned.
 
Last edited:
IT's been known publicly for years. Not sure why you think my previous comment did not make sense. If you and/or I have known since 2005, how was it not public knowledge? I'm not privy to secret information, are you?

Don't you think other countries do the same to us? Don't you think they infiltrate our country? Remember the 9/11 flying lessons? I'll ignore the neighbor comment, that is hardly an anaolgy.
Taking the same road as Aluminum I see...'they're doing it to us, so why can't we do it to them?' That's very poor morals in my books. Monkey see monkey do.' Or better yet, 'he stole from me, so I'm going to steal from him.' It's sad that our country and apparently people like JRBids / AluminumTheory think like this. Probably the same reason these terrorists blow themselves up in our country, for revenge. 'You killed my son in war, I kill you!'
As I said, I've known about the NSA spying bit since about 2005 as well. It had apparently been going on since at least 2001 (that I know of.). Snowden didn't reveal this, he revealed the scope of these programs and specific instances of corruption. It's one thing when we find out 'yeah, the NSA is collecting all kinds of data, for national security purposes, on terrorists.' It's another thing to learn that everyone is being targeted across the globe, and how easily employees of the NSA can grab whatever information they want on just about anybody.

The neighbor analogy is perfectly fine. You can't grasp it because you want things to seem complicated, you want to justify corruption.
 
No, I'm talking about the real world - Not the idealistic one you seem to think exist.
I wasn't even talking to you pal. I was discussing this with Aluminum Theory.
Please don't be so condescending; I live in the real world too.

I see you've edited and added more:
I justify it the way every other country justifies it. Know what's going on in other governments can be used to enhance your own security. It also provides insights into the motivations of other government, helps to predict how they will react to events, and can prevent misunderstandings that lead to conflicts. Espionage serves a number of purposes in the real world and not all of them are ill intentioned.
Once again, I go back to the neighbor analogy. Is it right for me to snoop on my neighbors just to get the upper hand?
Is It ok to hack their computers to figure out their goals or ideas?
Why is it ok for a country to do it? Please don't say 'well other countries are doing it...'
And the NSA has to be looked at as a whole. They're spying on everyone imaginable. Not some politically motivated BS, which is still wrong, but every citizen of it's own country, plus they keep lying about it. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't even talking to you pal. I was discussing this with Aluminum Theory.
Please don't be so condescending; I live in the real world too.

I see you've edited and added more:

Once again, I go back to the neighbor analogy. Is it right for me to snoop on my neighbors just to get the upper hand?
Is It ok to hack their computers to figure out their goals or ideas?
Why is it ok for a country to do it? Please don't say 'well other countries are doing it...'
And the NSA has to be looked at as a whole. They're spying on everyone imaginable. Not some politically motivated BS, which is still wrong, but every citizen of it's own country, plus they keep lying about it. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yeah, I was editing while you were posting because I felt the comment needed more exposition. Unfortunately it can take me 4 or 5 minutes to type a sentence.
 
I wasn't even talking to you pal. I was discussing this with Aluminum Theory.
Please don't be so condescending; I live in the real world too.

Once again, I go back to the neighbor analogy. Is it right for me to snoop on my neighbors just to get the upper hand?
Is It ok to hack their computers to figure out their goals or ideas?
Why is it ok for a country to do it? Please don't say 'well other countries are doing it...'
And the NSA has to be looked at as a whole. They're spying on everyone imaginable. Not some politically motivated BS, which is still wrong, but every citizen of it's own country, plus they keep lying about it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't approve of the NSA's domestic spying but I'm not going to act surprised or outraged over it. The NSA and it's predecessors have engaged in these practices since shortly after WWI. It's been an open secret since the Church Committee hearings made it public in the 70's. The neighbor analogy doesn't hold up because you usually don't have to worry about your neighbor engaging in practices that can cause you economic harm or endanger your security. If we had done a little more monitoring of our allies in the 90's we would have know that economic sanctions against Iraq were doomed because France and Germany were providing trade through third party channels.
 
I don't approve of the NSA's domestic spying but I'm not going to act surprised or outraged over it. The NSA and it's predecessors have engaged in these practices since shortly after WWI. It's been an open secret since the Church Committee hearings made it public in the 70's. The neighbor analogy doesn't hold up because you usually don't have to worry about your neighbor engaging in practices that can cause you economic harm or endanger your security. If we had done a little more monitoring of our allies in the 90's we would have know that economic sanctions against Iraq were doomed because France and Germany were providing trade through third party channels.
It's kind of getting into straw man land though because this all came about from mentioning Snowden did a good thing. I believe I said that in reference to Cairenn's post that to me came off as a bit spiteful towards Snowden.
 
It's kind of getting into straw man land though because this all came about from mentioning Snowden did a good thing. I believe I said that in reference to Cairenn's post that to me came off as a bit spiteful towards Snowden.
From "LAX Shooting Conspiracy Theories - Los Angeles Airport - False Flag Theories" to NSA domestic surveillance policies via a brief discussion of Gay Rights with a side of Alex Jones Is A Loon!/No He Isn't!. Seems fairly standard to me.
 
So it's only fascism if it's aligned or part of the current structure, but it can't be fascism if it's opposed to it?
His opposing a current power structure doesn't mean he wouldn't impose his own version of it with his own in-group if he could.
(speculation only and not saying he would).

Given the philosophy that Jones has laid down over the years he would discredit himself if he tried to partner with the DOJ or the DHS to create "hate speech" or "hate groups" lists like the SPLC does and so forth. He already has a record, so no one would listen to him anymore if he violated his own First/Second Amendment principles.

With respect to speculation, given that the SPLC was apparently created by Talmudists perhaps it's not surprising that their way is to centralize power over all other tribes or "hate groups" while apparently failing to mention the racial supremacy typical factions of the "in group"/tribe they may tend to identify with. (E.g. Chabad.)
“…If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value,” he explained. “There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.”— Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh in “Jewish Week,” the largest Jewish publication in the United States, April 26, 1996.
Content from External Source
Etc. I can find no record of the SPLC condemning Chabad or listing Zionists along with other tribal/racist hate groups that want their own nations based on perceptions of race or tribe.

I could be wrong. But it seems that what progressive dupes of the SPLC seem to be trying to see in Jones based on shadows and fact free "speculation" could be seen in the Southern Poverty Law Center, if anywhere. Speculation only, I'm not saying that the SPLC might have the same Talmudic mentality as many Jewish Bolsheviks that weren't really crying themselves to sleep over the poverty of Russian peasants after they helped centralize power and wound up starving millions of them to death. (Given the history of those with a Talmudic mentality the SPLC probably just wants to help win a war on poverty while paying themselves $300,000 in compensation and partnering with the DHS to try to police every form of tribalism or every hate group but Chabad, right? Or not.) All speculation only, not saying that they might begin to impose their version of a power structure to police all other tribes but their own in group if they could.

Anyway, can anyone here do a better job of framing Jones as a totalitarian or fascist? You take Jones as an apparen Constitutionalists and I'll take the SPLC and the way that they've begun working with the DOJ and DHS to try to police everyone but their own in group/tribe and so forth. It should be easy given that the SPLC supposedly wants to give everyone free ponies to poop happy and gay rainbows of tolerance and love everywhere, right?

There were corporate and state structures before fascism was instituted in Germany. So it was once an 'outsider' view.

Fascist leaders emerged from socialist parties because fascism is the heretical branch of socialism. So it's not as if they were civil libertarians before but then once they got power they turned into fascists and socialists. The historical record shows that they were always totalitarians and always had a tribal mentality, just like the Talmudists that they tended to enter into racist dialectics with. (Best to leave them both to debate who the chosen or supreme race is and go out and so something useful in life, seems to me.)

Given the facts about fascism it's likely that your unsupported speculations about Jones will always remain just that. But if there are some facts that support theories about Jones being "in many ways" a fascist or his being a fascist in the "doesn't mean he wouldn't be one in the future" world of hazy hopium and change, then have at it. Because so far I could probably do a better job of arguing that the SPLC has totalitarian goals.
 
What's the SPLC, and why should I care about its goals?

(Spanish Porcine Lovers Club?
Sewer Pipe Liberation Charter?)
 
What's the SPLC, and why should I care about its goals?

I don't know if you should care or not, but mynm seems to be pointing to the hypocrisy in the seductiveness of the SPLC and the multiculture madness which is part of the (dare I say it) culture wars. Pulling apart the social fabric of the west for nefarious means of establishing that totalitarian state that is so attractive to some, so feared by others and so ignored or denied by the rest. It's a big part of the context that drives the rhetoric of AJ and others.
 
I don't know if you should care or not, but mynm seems to be pointing to the hypocrisy in the seductiveness of the SPLC and the multiculture madness which is part of the (dare I say it) culture wars. Pulling apart the social fabric of the west for nefarious means of establishing that totalitarian state that is so attractive to some, so feared by others and so ignored or denied by the rest. It's a big part of the context that drives the rhetoric of AJ and others.
"Multiculture madness"?
 
Taking the same road as Aluminum I see...'they're doing it to us, so why can't we do it to them?' That's very poor morals in my books. Monkey see monkey do.' Or better yet, 'he stole from me, so I'm going to steal from him.' It's sad that our country and apparently people like JRBids / AluminumTheory think like this. Probably the same reason these terrorists blow themselves up in our country, for revenge. 'You killed my son in war, I kill you!'.


People tried the peace, love thing in the 60s. It didn't work even amongst fellow commune inhabitants

. If someone is spying on us, yes, we spy back on them. If someone is threatening to us, yes, we spy on them. Or we just ignore them like sitting ducks.
 
I have my opinion of Snowden, you have yours. You think he is a hero, I think he is an attention seeking coward that only cares for himself. Time will tell which of is, if either are right.

One problem with all 'whistleblowing' it it's effects on innocents. I know a family that almost lost their house, when someone 'blew the whistle' on some illegal practices that their employer was engaging in. One of the other employes, it was a small plumbing business did lose their car. Folks went without medical care, because of the 'Whistle blower'. One needs to think first, before acting. In that case, letting others know ahead of time that he was planning on revealing the illegal actions might have reduced the collateral damage.
 
I have my opinion of Snowden, you have yours. You think he is a hero, I think he is an attention seeking coward that only cares for himself. Time will tell which of is, if either are right.
I didn't say he was a hero. You're exaggerating here, and again it seems to be caused by your spite for the man. We seem to also have a difference of opinion on the word coward, as he clearly put himself in a very dangerous situation. That's exactly the opposite of a coward. I just think he did a good thing revealing the scope of these programs. As I said before, exposing corruption is not a bad thing.


One problem with all 'whistleblowing' it it's effects on innocents. I know a family that almost lost their house, when someone 'blew the whistle' on some illegal practices that their employer was engaging in. One of the other employes, it was a small plumbing business did lose their car. Folks went without medical care, because of the 'Whistle blower'. One needs to think first, before acting. In that case, letting others know ahead of time that he was planning on revealing the illegal actions might have reduced the collateral damage.
So that's how you justify malpractice? The point is, the malpractice itself is causing some sort of harm. That's why we need whistleblowers in the first place. Because of malpractice. I would say the malpractice itself would be the real cause of those innocent people losing their jobs or home or whatever. The employer is entirely at fault for making those decisions to do illegal activities or unsafe practices or whatever it is, so THEY are putting their employees at risk.

Imagine this: an employer is running his business just fine. No one is at risk. He decides to do some illegal actions for whatever reason, we'll say to save money. If he's caught, his business could be shut down and everyone loses a job. It's not the whistleblowers fault the employees lost their job, it became the employers fault the minute he made the decision to do whatever illegal practices he did.

Agreed?
 
Danger REALLY? of becoming the focus of movie, maybe. Of having to do jail time, yes. But he would have to be tried by a jury and I really doubt if he would have gotten convicted.
 
That's usually a dog whistle for racists who want to exclude minorities from expressing themselves or having their holidays recognized. It's not a good phrase to bandy about.
White issues have nothing to do with minority holidays or free expression. It has more to do with legitimate employment tests being disqualified because of "disparate impact" on minorities, and black crime being justified on grounds of "racism."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top