DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 934--------------------------------------------------
Re: .
DIR By: guest5
Date: August 29, 2020, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: & link ---
>
> What kind of mass shooter goes to the protest offering medical
assistance? Why did he only fire upon immediate threats to his
life? You're really lowering the bar here so it can fit your
agenda. Why did he not let loose and mag dump into the very
target rich environment? He was leaving the area after the first
incident (so 100% had no intention of further engagement, hence
no 'mass shooting'). The third shooting wasn't even fatal, he
let them retreat, wounded and still armed. Tarrant and Breivik,
sure, clear cut cases of mass shooting. This Kyle kid, not so
much. Looks like self-defense to me and anyone else making sane
observations.
>
> Let me guess though, this is just some fiendish new ploy by
the boogeyman white supremacists to do nothing violent, get
attacked first, then only respond to the attackers with great
restraint and appropriate force so they can claim self-defense.
Given your level of mental gymnastics, that probably makes
sense. The people he shot deserved it for their actions. They
obviously weren't good people.
>
--- End Quote ---
Regardless, had Kyle been "black" he probably would have been
shot by police, statistically speaking, even if he had complied
with lawful orders.
White People With Guns NOT Killed By Cops (VIDEOS)
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daVhasi95c4
I tried searching "Black people with guns NOT killed by cops"
but couldn't find any. Please explain why this is?
The following is just one example of many:
Blacks are only 7% of the Bay Area, but 27% of those killed by
police
--- Quote ---
> Bay Area News Group reviews 110 deaths, finds outsized
percentage of Blacks killed — even when they are unarmed
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/28/110-deaths-police-killings-in-the-bay-area-since-2015-result-in-no-prosecutions-of-cops-and-little-discipline/
#Post#: 939--------------------------------------------------
Re: Non-Aryan maturity
DIR By: /
Date: August 29, 2020, 7:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NuminousSun link ---
>
> Humanity is pathetic... If I were an alien with the means to
vanish humanity in the blink of an eye I would do it without
even thinking twice.
>
--- End Quote ---
That hardly sounds like a healthy attitude to have, you
omnicidal maniac. How could you be trusted to do good for other
people when you say something like that? Wanting to wipe out the
entire species is not a good way to encourage support for your
movement.
#Post#: 946--------------------------------------------------
Re: .
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: August 29, 2020, 11:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"What kind of mass shooter goes to the protest offering medical
assistance?"
Did he offer it to those whom he had just shot?
"Why did he only fire upon immediate threats to his life?"
You mean after he had already killed the first guy and hence was
being threatened by those who considered him a threat to their
lives? You are behaving like Tucker Carlson.
"Why did he not let loose and mag dump into the very target rich
environment?"
As Alt-Right people would say: bad optics.
"He was leaving the area after the first incident (so 100% had
no intention of further engagement, hence no 'mass shooting').
The third shooting wasn't even fatal, he let them retreat,
wounded and still armed. Tarrant and Breivik, sure, clear cut
cases of mass shooting."
Breivik also left the area after the first incident (the
bombing). Leaving the area after the first incident does not
imply no intention of further engagement.
#Post#: 949--------------------------------------------------
Re: .
DIR By: -
Date: August 30, 2020, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 90sRetroFan link ---
>
> Did he offer it to those whom he had just shot?
>
> You mean after he had already killed the first guy and hence
was being threatened by those who considered him a threat to
their lives? You are behaving like Tucker Carlson.
>
> As Alt-Right people would say: bad optics.
>
> Breivik also left the area after the first incident (the
bombing). Leaving the area after the first incident does not
imply no intention of further engagement.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, to the first person shot, who may have been struck by a
round not from Rittenhouse's rifle anyway (still not exactly
clear as shots were apparently fired before Rittenhouse
responded and it could have been one of these shots). The mob
began to act in a way suggesting his life was in danger, so he
retreated instead. Joseph 'shoot me nigga!' Rosenbaum, convicted
pedophile, had instigated the confrontation in a possible case
of mistaken identity. Footage shows him antagonising another man
wearing a green shirt and holding a rifle earlier on.
A person leaving, without brandishing their weapon, is now
considered a threat? Good luck with that in court. I guess
anytime there is a citizen involved shooting everyone in the
vicinity ought to attack them? You are behaving like an idiot at
best.
So it IS a fiendish ploy by white supremacists? I shouldn't he
surprised but damn it, do you honestly buy your own BS or is it
just a desperate, cynical attempt to control the narrative?
Leaving the scene to avoid further confrontation with
unreasonable mob violence, attempting to turn oneself over to
the approriate authorities on the scene and complying with his
later arrest all suggest strongly he had no intention to do more
harm. Breivik left the bomb site to go shooting, not hand
himself in. Stop being so disingenuous, it deosn't suit you.
Why are you incapable of ever admitting a mistake? You're not
perfect. The biggest mistake you keep making is stubbornly
pretending you have made none. You made a snap decision that
Kyle is a rightist mass shooter and cannot consider the
alternatives. Kyle didn't want to shoot anybody, that much is
obvious. He acted only in self-defense. I know you can see that,
so why can't you admit it instead of poisoning the discourse?
You probably support the third person who got hit, the one who
feigned surrender to try and get the drop on Kyle before losing
the use of his right arm. Who supposedly said his only regret
was not 'killing the kid'. No doubt you'd be singing that
scumbag's praises if he'd succeeded in his attempted murder.
#Post#: 950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Non-Aryan maturity
DIR By: -
Date: August 30, 2020, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: / link ---
>
> [quote author=NuminousSun link=topic=55.msg935#msg935
date=1598728702]
> Humanity is pathetic... If I were an alien with the means to
vanish humanity in the blink of an eye I would do it without
even thinking twice.
>
--- End Quote ---
That hardly sounds like a healthy attitude to have, you
omnicidal maniac. How could you be trusted to do good for other
people when you say something like that? Wanting to wipe out the
entire species is not a good way to encourage support for your
movement.
[/quote]
I noticed this post I replied to is no longer in that thread.
Why, I wonder? Was it 'bad optics'?
#Post#: 951--------------------------------------------------
Re: Non-Aryan maturity
DIR By: guest5
Date: August 30, 2020, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: / link ---
>
> [quote author=NuminousSun link=topic=55.msg935#msg935
date=1598728702]
> Humanity is pathetic... If I were an alien with the means to
vanish humanity in the blink of an eye I would do it without
even thinking twice.
>
--- End Quote ---
That hardly sounds like a healthy attitude to have, you
omnicidal maniac. How could you be trusted to do good for other
people when you say something like that? Wanting to wipe out the
entire species is not a good way to encourage support for your
movement.
[/quote]
"If I were an alien"....
If there were a species of noble aliens out there they may
actually try and wipe out humanity before humans spread their
violence and nonsense through the rest of the galaxy. That was
more the point. But alas, you do what most people do when they
try and attack this movement because they disagree with some of
it. Rather than ever clearly stating what their problems
actually are they nitpick around the edges and pull at a few low
hanging fruit here and there, but they can never clearly express
what their issues are. Many of these people are actually racists
deep down I feel, they just don't want to say it out loud, so
they try and play the "I'm an innocent just merely inquiring"
game, which is so easy to see through it actually makes them
look pathetic. I've also noticed all of these people will never
try and comprehend and understand a different worldview, if only
to make a serious attempt at refuting it, which mind you is what
would need to be done if a serious attempt at refutation were to
be made by them. But, they cannot even do that. That would be
too much work for them, and let's face it, politically speaking
most of them are hobbyists at best anyway. (Another reason I
despise democracy by the way). Hobbyists who come by and have
just enough mentally energy to nitpick around the edges. Not
serious people at all, but then again that's the status-quo for
humanity, not the exception....
Speaking of serious refutations, here is one for Alt-Rightists
and "White Nationalist" types:
HTML http://thefallingobserver.blogspot.com/p/rule-14.html
#Post#: 957--------------------------------------------------
Re: .
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: August 30, 2020, 11:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"A person leaving, without brandishing their weapon, is now
considered a threat?"
Are you referring to Jacob Blake?
"I guess anytime there is a citizen involved shooting everyone
in the vicinity ought to attack them?"
What is the point of being armed if not to shoot back at someone
who starts shooting?
"Kyle didn't want to shoot anybody"
So much so that he made a decision to illegally carry an AR-15
so that he could not shoot anybody with it. If he didn't want to
shoot anybody, he didn't even have to travel to the event in the
first place, let alone travel to it with an illegaly carried
weapon. But he did. This tells me he turned up categorically
expecting opportunities to shoot people (and perhaps get away
with it in the confusion).
"He acted only in self-defense."
No one who makes a premeditated decision to undertake a journey
specifically to threaten someone else can reasonably claim
self-defence. This applies to Zimmerman, to the McMichaels, and
to Rittenhouse. Self-defence is when you are going about your
daily business, are attacked and then defend yourself.
Self-defence is not when you initiate targeting someone and then
protect yourself from the retaliation of your frightened target
who would never have been frightened had you not turned up to
target them in the first place.
#Post#: 985--------------------------------------------------
Re: .
DIR By: "
Date: September 2, 2020, 6:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 90sRetroFan link ---
>
> Are you referring to Jacob Blake?
>
> What is the point of being armed if not to shoot back at
someone who starts shooting?
>
> So much so that he made a decision to illegally carry an AR-15
so that he could not shoot anybody with it. If he didn't want to
shoot anybody, he didn't even have to travel to the event in the
first place, let alone travel to it with an illegaly carried
weapon. But he did. This tells me he turned up categorically
expecting opportunities to shoot people (and perhaps get away
with it in the confusion).
>
> No one who makes a premeditated decision to undertake a
journey specifically to threaten someone else can reasonably
claim self-defence. This applies to Zimmerman, to the
McMichaels, and to Rittenhouse. Self-defence is when you are
going about your daily business, are attacked and then defend
yourself. Self-defence is not when you initiate targeting
someone and then protect yourself from the retaliation of your
frightened target who would never have been frightened had you
not turned up to target them in the first place.
>
--- End Quote ---
Blake was under arrest, after the police had been called to deal
with him. He resisted, did not comply and could easily have
taken officer's lives with a weapon from his vehicle. You
already know this though, you're just being a kunt.
Which is what Kyle did. Shots were fired from behind him, he
turned and faced Rosenbaum who lunged and grabbed for the rifle.
Yet I suppose your standard doesn't apply in this case for some
reason.
It was legally carried as far as we can tell. Borrowed from
someone local. He works in Kenosha, so he didn't travel out of
his way, unlike many rioters (or protesters as you might
deceptively term them). Gaige Grosskreutz was illegally
carrying, as a felon. Not that it matters to you, being such a
god damned hypocrite.
So now you can retroactively read minds? Impressive, you know
why Kyle was there! It was intentionally to provoke an attack on
himself, the fiendish white supremacist plot raises its head
again. Current events considered, he WAS going about his daily
business.
You're a PoS, defending other turds. It will not end well for
you. I was fooled for years, now you're showing your true
colours.
#Post#: 990--------------------------------------------------
Re: .
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: September 2, 2020, 11:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"could easily have taken officer's lives with a weapon from his
vehicle"
So, in your view, someone who is not carrying a weapon should be
considered dangerous because they might get one from their
vehicle, while someone who is already carrying a weapon (and has
already just shot someone with it) should be considered not
dangerous merely because they are not "brandishing" the weapon
they are carrying (and just used to shoot someone with). Are you
from Fox News?
"Shots were fired from behind him"
By whom? If you don't know by whom, you don't start shooting at
other people!
"It was legally carried as far as we can tell."
HTML https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/no-wkrc-kyle-rittenhouse-couldnt-have-open-carried-ar-15-ohio-without-laws-being-broken
"So now you can retroactively read minds?"
You started it:
--- Quote ---
> Kyle didn't want to shoot anybody
--- End Quote ---
"he WAS going about his daily business."
Does he commute to a different state every day?
#Post#: 1455--------------------------------------------------
Re: .
DIR By: rp
Date: October 9, 2020, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 90sRetroFan link ---
>
> "You have an odd definition of a 'rightist mass shooting' if
you are saying that Kyle Rittenhouse has perpetrated one"
>
> Rittenhouse is a Trump supporter (rightist) and he shot
multiple people in a single incident (mass shooting).
>
> "I got it wrong, didn't I?"
>
> You are free to list which statements in the video you
disagree with, and explain why.
>
> "Just so I understand your position, you are saying that the
film '300' is more likely to encourage the defense of western
civ than a communist insurrection posing an existential threat?"
>
> I never mentioned communism. I did mention 9/11. What
insurrection are you referring to that occurred after 9/11 but
before '300'? Because following the latter event the mentality
of defending Western civilization had already returned.
>
--- End Quote ---
Looking back, its funny how that film was so cheesy and over the
top, that it even spawned numerous parodies in Hollywood! Just
take a look at this scene which has notoriously become a meme:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Prc1UfuokY
I can't imagine how people could watch this movie with a
straight face
:D :D
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page