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

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

Here in Vegas I can get some of the most ridiculous firearms from my video games, no problem! I also rather like the laws we have for seatbelts, helmets, and other protective gear we should wear and in fact are told we legally have to wear.

As for the rest of the Gish Gallop, no-fly lists seem to be a good thing. I like the idea that criminals and terrorists and the like can't simply hop on a plane to get away to a no extradition country or to do bad things.

Also "free speech" breaches is really vague.
All constitutional freedoms have limits to them. I shouldn't be able to own an ICBM with a MIRV warhead topped with megaton level bombs.

 

[Cairenn]

I had to look up 'Constitution free zones' that seems to be a definition for areas along the borders and seaports of the US.

 

[Bemused to Death]

Ok, we have a Gish Gallop of laws you do not like.

We have a list of examples of individual liberties being opposed in response to someone asking for them, no more no less. Regardless of where anyone stands on any of them, it doesn't change the fact that they exist.

 

[Bemused to Death]

I had to look up 'Constitution free zones' that seems to be a definition for areas along the borders and seaports of the US.

Not any more.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.

The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”

But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.

As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.

Nine of the top 10 largest metropolitan areas as determined by the 2000 census, fall within the Constitution-free Zone. (The only exception is #9, Dallas-Fort Worth.) Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

Not any more.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

Not really:
http://news.yahoo.com/does-constitution-free-zone-really-exist-america-195813138.html

Legally, the 100-mile-wide region is called the “extended border” of the U.S., as defined by Title 8 of the Federal Code of Regulations. There is also something called the “functional equivalent” border, which is the area around international airports in the interior region of the U.S.

The DHS ruling from last Friday said its “warrantless searches” applied to the U.S. “border and its functional equivalent,” with no mention of the extended 100-mile border.

Two analysis papers from the Congressional Research Service from 2009 offer some legal insight into what tactics agents can follow within the 100-mile-wide extended border, and why the distinction between the extended border and the other two borders is important.

Searches within the 100-mile extended border zone, and outside of the immediate border-stop location, must meet three criteria: a person must have recently crossed a border; an agent should know that the object of a search hasn’t changed; and that “reasonable suspicion” of a criminal activity must exist, says the CRS. (The service had done the legal analyses to prepare Congress members for legislation.)

“Although a search at the border’s functional equivalent and an extended border search require similar elements, the extended border search entails a potentially greater intrusion on a legitimate expectation of privacy. Thus, an extended border search always requires a showing of ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal activity, while a search at the functional equivalent of the border may not require any degree of suspicion whatsoever,” the CRS says.

The fact that agents need to show “reasonable suspicion” outside direct border stops and airports puts their actions closer to the scope of the Fourth Amendment, says the CRS.

“The Fourth Amendment mandates that a search or seizure conducted by a government agent must be ‘reasonable.’ As a general rule, courts have construed Fourth Amendment reasonableness as requiring probable cause and a judicially granted warrant. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to these requirements, one of which is the border search exception.”

The argument about a Constitution-free zone may better apply to direct border stops and airports, where agents don’t need to explain why they are searching a computer or cell phone. So, there could still be a “Constitution-free zone,” based on the outcome of legal appeals. It would just be much smaller than that 100-mile band around the U.S..

The CRS says the Supreme Court has yet to consider a case involving the degree of suspicion needed to search laptops at the border without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

Content from External Source

 

[Cairenn]

Individual liberties are not unlimited, anywhere. Even in a failed state, the powerful that control an area will limit personal liberties.

You shouldn't have the liberty to open up a battery recyling plant next to a school, or drive drunk or to own a machine gun.

 

[AluminumTheory]

I think some people see a traffic light as a form of tyranny.

 

[Pete Tar]

You asked for examples of specific oppositions to individual liberties. I gave you examples of areas where individual liberties are under attack. If you wanted conclusive evidence that there is dismay at individual liberties threatening an old order you should have asked for it as that's an entirely different matter.

Sorry I thought I did.
"or are there specific oppositions to individual liberties that you can show?"
I meant declarations of opposition on principle. I should have said 'specifically stated oppositions'. Choosing the right words is sometimes a struggle with me.

I don't even know what this means, so no, I cannot.

Another alternative attempt to clarify my above question.

If there aren't two sides to it, then it isn't an issue, is it?

Yes, but the phrase, rather than addressing the issue, frames it as a meta-agenda to bypass addressing the content, and then becomes a conversation about meta-issues.

If you knew what it meant, why did you ask what it meant?

Because it means different things at different times. You surely were not talking about australian aboriginal history were you?

Ok, so maybe you don't know what it means after all. It's not a tactic; it's a common descriptive term, just like scientism. It has nothing to do with ignoring the "real issue" or twisting or discrediting anything. It describes a body of ongoing issues in the cultural mileu. Where you or I stand on any of those issues or whatever anyone's agenda may be is irrelevant as to whether the issues being described exist. They do. If one wants to point to them, the term "culture wars" is useful way to do so.

Okay if you say so, there can be legitimate discussion of the topic - I have just seen the term used dishonestly as a side-lining tactic, especially in politics, and typically as some kind of false left-right dichotomy.

 

[MichaelStox]

That's nonsense, there has been MASSIVE coverage of the NSA allegations. I've hardly heard anything about Snowden's personal life since the initial story broke.

Nonsense? Pls link me to a single article or coverage bit from the corporate syndicate defending Snowden's actions.

 

[AluminumTheory]

The discussion was about coverage. Not perspective.

 

[Mick West]

Nonsense? Pls link me to a single article or coverage bit from the corporate syndicate defending Snowden's actions.

You said:

An example of how the media is not there to expose the truth but rather to cover it up and protect the interests hurt by it. All the coverage centered on Edward Snowden being a traitor and a leaker, how he's a high school drop out and other non-stop ad hominem attacks rather than coverage of what was actually exposed with few exceptions (Glen Greenwald & Post).

There is plenty of coverage of what was exposed.

 

[Cairenn]

Maybe you don't think that WHO he is is important, but a lot of us do. If nothing else to understand why he did what he did. To me, he was more interested in getting attention, than in revealing information.

To me the most disturbing fact is that he had the access he did. That is were I see a major issue.

I remember when Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon papers. He didn't make a circus of releasing them and he stayed in the US instead of fleeing to 'barely friendly' totalarant countries. BIG DIFFERENCE

 

[Bill]

Nonsense? Pls link me to a single article or coverage bit from the corporate syndicate defending Snowden's actions.

So it doesn't count as coverage unless it supports your viewpoint?

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Maybe you don't think that WHO he is is important, but a lot of us do. If nothing else to understand why he did what he did. To me, he was more interested in getting attention, than in revealing information.

To me the most disturbing fact is that he had the access he did. That is were I see a major issue.

I remember when Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon papers. He didn't make a circus of releasing them and he stayed in the US instead of fleeing to 'barely friendly' totalarant countries. BIG DIFFERENCE

Considering what has happened to all other whistle blowers recently, I think we can forgive the man for fleeing US jurisdiction. I doubt he was more interested in attention than revealing information. He knew well the risks involved and how his life would be forever changed. He is a brave young man. All whistle blowers deserve our support, it's a thankless task.

 

[Bemused to Death]

I think some people see a traffic light as a form of tyranny.

Only when they are red. Then they are a menace.

Seriously, though, you may not be as far off as you might think. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas may take on a whole new meaning, given the proposed new streetlights that can record video and audio. Some will no doubt find succor in the "for now" qualifier. Others, not so much.

http://www.mynews3.com/mostpopular/...r-now-intended-to/avBght12WkynXDA95Gh8Vw.cspx

 

[Josh Heuer]

Maybe you don't think that WHO he is is important, but a lot of us do. If nothing else to understand why he did what he did. To me, he was more interested in getting attention, than in revealing information.

To me the most disturbing fact is that he had the access he did. That is were I see a major issue.

I remember when Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon papers. He didn't make a circus of releasing them and he stayed in the US instead of fleeing to 'barely friendly' totalarant countries. BIG DIFFERENCE

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.

 

[Bill]

All whistle blowers deserve our support, it's a thankless task.

Really? Even those that do it for personal gain or endanger national security. I'd have more respect if he was willing to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Really? Even those that do it for personal gain or endanger national security. I'd have more respect if he was willing to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

It doesn't matter why they do it.

A whistleblower is

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposesmisconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Content from External Source

They're exposing illegal actions, misconduct. No matter what their reasons are for doing it, it's to expose corruption. If you think that it's wrong for them to expose corruption, then that's saying you support our government being able to abuse the law.

 

[Bill]

It doesn't matter why they do it.

A whistleblower is

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposesmisconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Content from External Source

They're exposing illegal actions, misconduct. No matter what their reasons are for doing it, it's to expose corruption. If you think that it's wrong for them to expose corruption, then that's saying you support our government being able to abuse the law.

If it doesn't matter why they do it then your standards aren't very high and your approach to what can be a very complicated issue is rather simplistic. I happen to think motives are also important if you are going to laud someone as a hero. For example: If they were fine with the practice until they didn't get the promotion they wanted then the desire to expose corruption is questionable. If they are willing to release the information but only in return for monetary reward their actions are questionable. Not all whistle blowers are deserving of unqualified support.

 

[Bemused to Death]

If it doesn't matter why they do it then your standards aren't very high and your approach to what can be a very complicated issue is rather simplistic. I happen to think motives are also important if you are going to laud someone as a hero. For example: If they were fine with the practice until they didn't get the promotion they wanted then the desire to expose corruption is questionable. If they are willing to release the information but only in return for monetary reward their actions are questionable. Not all whistle blowers are deserving of unqualified support.

It seems you are saying that if someone exposes systematic wrongdoing for personal gain then it is better that that wrongdoing wasn't exposed. Am I missing something here?

 

[Josh Heuer]

If it doesn't matter why they do it then your standards aren't very high and your approach to what can be a very complicated issue is rather simplistic. I happen to think motives are also important if you are going to laud someone as a hero. For example: If they were fine with the practice until they didn't get the promotion they wanted then the desire to expose corruption is questionable. If they are willing to release the information but only in return for monetary reward their actions are questionable. Not all whistle blowers are deserving of unqualified support.

You're too focused on the individual releasing the information and not the information itself. If they expose corruption, then bravo. Forget their motives.

And by the way, this has very little to do with my standards. The only standard I've imparted is that corruption should be exposed.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Really? Even those that do it for personal gain or endanger national security. I'd have more respect if he was willing to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

How do you mean take responsibility for his actions? Go to prison? His president made a promise that whistle blowers would be protected, and that was a lie. How has his revelation that the NSA has over extended its remit by spying on virtually everyone endangered your national security? Revealing codes on how nuclear submarines activate their warheads, stuff on that level endangers national security (apparently), but disclosing that citizens every phone call and every digital communication is being monitored ... how, exactly, does that endanger national security?

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

If it doesn't matter why they do it then your standards aren't very high and your approach to what can be a very complicated issue is rather simplistic. I happen to think motives are also important if you are going to laud someone as a hero. For example: If they were fine with the practice until they didn't get the promotion they wanted then the desire to expose corruption is questionable. If they are willing to release the information but only in return for monetary reward their actions are questionable. Not all whistle blowers are deserving of unqualified support.

I didn't say that every whistle blower should be regarded as a hero, I said we should support them. Josh had a point, when someone is blowing the whistle on corruption, then that surely should be the most important thing. I'm sure you can fill me in on the whistle blowers who were in it for the money, and they deserve nothing except credit for exposing the corruption. I'm not sure that I'd consider Snowden a hero, but I certainly respect him for what he's done. He's exposed very high level corruption. Hopefully his actions will inspire others who come across corruption to expose that too. It's a long time since Watergate, when journalists used to do this kind of thing.

 

[Bill]

You're too focused on the individual releasing the information and not the information itself. If they expose corruption, then bravo. Forget their motives.

And by the way, this has very little to do with my standards. The only standard I've imparted is that corruption should be exposed.

Which when you are dealing with organizations that are involved with national security is a simplistic approach.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Which when you are dealing with organizations that are involved with national security is a simplistic approach.

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.

 

[mynym]

Would you put money on something measurable happening in five years? Say $100?

You should probably place your side of the bet in Bitcoins.

What would "something measurable" look like to you? What's the factual framework by which your theory is verifiable or falsifiable?

 

[Mick West]

You should probably place your side of the bet in Bitcoins.

What would "something measurable" look like to you? What's the factual framework by which your theory is verifiable or falsifiable?

I'm not suggesting a theory. I'm asking BtD to say what he thinks will happen, and if he'll put money on it. If I don't think it will happen (whatever he suggests), then I'll take the bet.

Any currency or goods can be used.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

You should probably place your side of the bet in Bitcoins.

What would "something measurable" look like to you? What's the factual framework by which your theory is verifiable or falsifiable?

Hey, it's your money, you set the framework.

 

[mynym]

I remember when Ellsburg leaked the Pentagon papers. He didn't make a circus of releasing them and he stayed in the US instead of fleeing to 'barely friendly' totalarant countries. BIG DIFFERENCE

It's unlikely that most peasants in Russia think that they're living in a totalitarian country.

Ironically... if they did begin to think that and became whistle blowers then many ill informed peasants in Russia might think of them as traitors to Russia instead of as someone trying to look out for other peasants, especially if they fled to America.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

It's unlikely that most peasants in Russia think that they're living in a totalitarian country.

Ironically... if they did begin to think that and became whistle blowers then many ill informed peasants in Russia might think of them as traitors to Russia instead of as someone trying to look out for other peasants, especially if they fled to America.

What's a Russian peasant, these days? Is there a new definition in the mananam world for peasants, or are you using the archaic term to refer to some part of modern Russia?

I ask merely for information.

 

[qed]

Hey, I want in on the bet. I want to buy into the fascism has arrived end.

But, if you want in on the other end, first give us some symptoms that must have occurred for us to conclude fascism is here.

 

[mynym]

I'm not suggesting a theory. I'm asking BtD to say what he thinks will happen, and if he'll put money on it. If I don't think it will happen (whatever he suggests), then I'll take the bet.

Any currency or goods can be used.

I don't know what his theory is. But if most CTers are correct then winning a bet for $100 when the petrodollar becomes even more worthless (due to the scenarios of theorists happening again) then that form of debt/money won't do him much good.

When are you going to suggest your own theories?

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

I don't know what his theory is. But if most CTers are correct then winning a bet for $100 when the petrodollar becomes even more worthless (due to the scenarios of theorists happening again) then that form of debt/money won't do him much good.

When are you going to suggest your own theories?

Mick was responding to a post, so he doesn't need to posit a theory of his own. I'm interested in your brackets though: (due to the scenarios of theorists happening again). Can you indicate the scenarios of theorists that have happened before?

 

[mynym]

Hey, I want in on the bet. I want to buy into the fascism has arrived end.

But, if you want in on the other end, first give us some symptoms that must have occurred for us to conclude fascism is here.

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.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

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.

Amazing deflection. Fair dues, that's one long ramble that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the comment you were apparently responding to. Which was "if you want in on the other end, first give us some symptoms that must have occurred for us to conclude fascism is here."

No, ignore the question, and instead call out people who might have called Jones a fascist. It might have happened, I don't recall anyone calling Jones a fascist, but I'm sure you can correct me with quotes, links etc. Not that it matters. It has nothing to do with the comment.

 

[qed]

Fascism in 5.
Bottles of Jack.
1000 to 1 (you bet n to win 1/n)
Any takers?

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Fascism in 5.
Bottles of Jack.
1000 to 1 (you bet n to win 1/n)
Any takers?

Make it Jameson, and you can count me in for 1n. Just on the off chance of ending up with loads of Jameson.

My liver prays I don't win. My wife, likewise.

 

[Pete Tar]

...
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.)
....

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).

Also 'corporate and state power structures' do not automatically equal 'fascism'.
There were corporate and state structures before fascism was instituted in Germany. So it was once an 'outsider' view.

 

[qed]

Make it Jameson, and you can count me in for 1n. Just on the off chance of ending up with loads of Jameson.

My liver prays I don't win. My wife, likewise.

If you bet 1n, and fascism arrives, I pay you 1n, but if fascism does not arrive, you pay me 1000n.

Current odds: 1000 to 1

But you must posit some symptoms we can agree on.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

But you must posit some symptoms we can agree on.

I'll leave that up to you. I'm only in the game for the possibility of whiskey. Set the bounds, and I'll agree.