[j r]

(08-06-2012 12:01 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(08-05-2012 10:36 PM)j r Wrote:  

There's a problem with the government conspiracy argument. And that is the people in the government with the skills and the inclination to carry out these kinds of operations tend to be the kind of people who are favor of the second amendment.

Not. The controllers car only about control. The person sent to the mission is just a patsy - easily controlled with drugs, hypnosis, and other persuasion techniques

That doesn't make any sense. The CIA used to run operations to de-stabilize and overthrow unfriendly regimes in the third world. The FBI used to run COINTELPRO to spy on people that Hoover thought were subversive. All shady shit, but all with a purpose. Stop communism. Deter domestic dissent.

The shit you're talking about is like something that a comic book villain would do.

[raliv]

proximity + diversity = war

[LonerWithABoner]

It's funny how the media is going out of its way to point out that this was a white male.

The majority of violent crime in America is committed by black males, but in those cases the media almost always describes the suspects as "youths" or "young male".

[RawGod]

(08-06-2012 12:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

The shit you're talking about is like something that a comic book villain would do.

What you're saying sounds reasonable. And I think it's unlikely this incident was a conspiracy.

But when you study what has come out about the CIA and similar agencies, they have the means, motive and opportunity to do all kinds of crazy shit and they will get a free pass based on "nah, that's too outrageous". But agencies did do mind control (MKUltra), they did set up false flag terror groups (Operation Gladio) and they did have fucking dart-guns shooting toxic needles of ice, and umbrella guns (Church Commission, 1970s).

So who knows what goes on. Name 10 weird conspiracy theories, and some of them are probably true. We just don't know which ones. As I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of devoting my life to investigation, my solution is simple: don't believe a word of media/government propaganda.

[j r]

(08-06-2012 12:51 PM)raliv Wrote:  

proximity + diversity = war

Yeah, this is Roissy's statement. To be honest with you, I've never really understood it as a particularly profound. Wars are fought by different sides, which necessitates some level of diversity. And of course, conflicts generally happen over some particular piece of turf or resource where the two sides bump heads.

There's plenty of examples, however, of people who aren't particularly diverse going to war with each other: Irish Catholics vs. Irish Protestants, black Crips vs. black Bloods, one Italian crime family against another. I guess you could argue that the one difference in each of those cases equals diversity, but that's not a particularly meaningful definition of diversity.

That statement is a tautology.

[j r]

(08-06-2012 01:00 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

(08-06-2012 12:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

The shit you're talking about is like something that a comic book villain would do.

What you're saying sounds reasonable. And I think it's unlikely this incident was a conspiracy.

But when you study what has come out about the CIA and similar agencies, they have the means, motive and opportunity to do all kinds of crazy shit and they will get a free pass based on "nah, that's too outrageous". But agencies did do mind control (MKUltra), they did set up false flag terror groups (Operation Gladio) and they did have fucking dart-guns shooting toxic needles of ice, and umbrella guns (Church Commission, 1970s).

So who knows what goes on. Name 10 weird conspiracy theories, and some of them are probably true. We just don't know which ones. As I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of devoting my life to investigation, my solution is simple: don't believe a word of media/government propaganda.

When I say comic book villain, I'm not talking about the methods. I'm talking about the whole "control for the sake of control" thing. I just don't see who benefits from sending some dude to shoot up a Sikh temple. It's just as likely to make people want guns more as it is to bring about more gun control.

[Veloce]

Look, I understand the theories behind state-sponsored domestic terrorism, and I fully believe the U.S. government would implement it in a heartbeat to acheive some sort of agenda, but I don't think that's the case here. The motive of that sort of domestic terrorism is to decrease the perceived security of the populace; you don't achieve that by icing some peaceful Sikh's in bumfuck Wisconsin.

Not every gun wielding maniac is a puppet of the U.S. government. We are a naturally violent society. Anytime you jump a little too fast at the conspiracy angle, you reduce your own credibility and it makes other less likely to take you seriously.

[Basil Ransom]

Pretty asinine - some Indians use the shooting as an excuse to get all anti-American, including state officials.

[j r]

I guess those particular Indians think that only Indians are allowed to indiscriminately kill Indians.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/04/25/india...acre-sikhs

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india...incomplete

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/wor...2012-india

[Basil Ransom]

(08-06-2012 08:11 PM)j r Wrote:  

I guess those particular Indians think that only Indians are allowed to indiscriminately kill Indians.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/04/25/india...acre-sikhs

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india...incomplete

http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/wor...2012-india

Exactly, you don't have to dig deep to find atrocities ten times as bad and ten times as shady. If your first response is to burn American flags, you don't care about Sikhs so much as you wildly hate America. If I was Clinton, I'd just ignore these anti-Americans and work with the reasonable Sikhs.

[speakeasy]

(08-06-2012 01:03 PM)j r Wrote:  

(08-06-2012 12:51 PM)raliv Wrote:  

proximity + diversity = war

Yeah, this is Roissy's statement. To be honest with you, I've never really understood it as a particularly profound. Wars are fought by different sides, which necessitates some level of diversity. And of course, conflicts generally happen over some particular piece of turf or resource where the two sides bump heads.

There's plenty of examples, however, of people who aren't particularly diverse going to war with each other: Irish Catholics vs. Irish Protestants, black Crips vs. black Bloods, one Italian crime family against another. I guess you could argue that the one difference in each of those cases equals diversity, but that's not a particularly meaningful definition of diversity.

That statement is a tautology.

Anyone saying diversity inevitably leads to war is simply making a statement about his disdain for diversity(and we all know Roissy's views on racial matters). Most wars on this planet have been fought between people who like like each other. The only common denominator is competing interests.

[Kaizen]

1st post by Roosh summed it up...'another day in america'

[FretDancer]

(08-05-2012 10:21 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

When are you guys gonna wake up ??

FALSE FLAG

MK-ULTRA mind control victims/ assassins - "Jason Bourne" style sent to do mass killings.

Definitely Jason Bourne style.

[haywire]

He was indeed a white supremacist who recently broke up with his girlfriend

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06...47179.html

[Hanzal]

(08-05-2012 06:53 PM)painter Wrote:  

Sikhs are very peaceful, like they won't even kill ants or bugs. Their religion is a mix of islam and zoroastrianism which goes back thousands of years. I know a few guys who are sikhs and they are the most down to earth, laid back people I ever met. So if a guy shoots up their temple he's either seriously delusional or borderline retarded if he thinks they're muslims. Like Roosh said about the douche in Colorado, it's another guy who can't get any pussy (unless he pays for it) snapping. Anybody who got a piece on Saturday night is not waking up this morning and loading up for a killing spree.

Whatever the reasoning is it should be particularly twisted.

They are peaceful but when it comes time to fight, they know how. One of the tenets of their faith is too fight opression everywhere and to protect those that can't protect themselves.
You'll find them, in disproportionate numbers, in every army where they live (e.g. they make up 15% of the Indian army but are only 2% of the population, less than 1% in Canada but make up 5% of military, etc.). In World War 1 and WW2, the Sikh regiments were awarded the most Victoria Crosses, per capita, for valour and bravery in the British army.
The 65-year old man who died in this shooting went at the gunman with a butter-knife (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/06/...in-gunman/).

On a game note, most of the Indians I know that have decent game, are Sikhs (the ones that aren't so traditional).