It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here’s how far-right Christians incited stochastic terrorism at a Colorado Springs PP

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: ~Lucidity

My point is that this lunatic was choosing people randomly to shoot...with a heavy emphasis on cops.
Seem like his warped thinking was heavily influenced by BLM.


Absolutely. If he was targeting cops, that blows this leftist conspiracy out of the water.


Does it cross your mind that he targeted cops because they posed the greatest immediate threat to him?

Damn, I just blew that conspiracy out of the water.


The conspiracy you blew out of the water, unintentionally I'm sure, is that he was pushed by "right-wing propaganda talk."




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LSU0408

Whining? Hardly. It's disgust because it appears that rational thought and reason takes a backseat to ignorance and stupidity.....and we're expected to take it seriously.



A knee jerk reaction would be crying out that the killer in this scenario is a right-wing Conservative Christian terrorist without one valid link of proof, and it's being screamed from the highest mountain tops.


I haven't said anything like that, so what's your point?


You haven't been claiming that since yesterday?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What you say is true, in regards to essentially a slippery slope toward the silencing of opinions, and I'm in full agreement with you there, but, it doesn't mean it's not real (to a degree.) I think there is a mindset which lends itself toward a certain breed of psychopathy which is more likely to "become the missile" in such a case.

I don't have a fully flushed-out definition, and it's not something exclusive to either of the silly political "sides" in the US. It requires a blend of "feed" for the (ultimate) perpetrator: part fear, part repetetively reinforced paranoias, part "perceived Just Anger", and more. The person perpetrating such an act believes they must act, and likely, in their perception, can't believe someone else hasn't stepped up to the plate already.

A person not suceptible to distortions of truth and proportion wouldn't be inclined to act (obviously, none of the rest of us were), but imagine the circumstances amplified/multiplied to a point where it made sense to take drastic action that you felt justified in, even if it meant the literal or figurative end of your own life and that of others - that's what such a susceptible person experiences.

The problem is, there's no way to stop it. If "inciteful" media saturation were stopped (whether 'real' or 'fabricated'), it would simply change the threshold. There's people out there one step away from going on a killing spree to stop the birth of the next "Bat Boy" if the Enquirer suggested it was imminent.

I guess what trying to get at is that the idea of "stochastic terrorism" is really just a way of linking the "source material" which a person's psychopathic tendencies fed off of as having some kind of responsibility for the event. No matter how restrictive any form of speech became, there would be someone unhinged enough to take inappropriate measures, based on the way they process information, which could be linked back to the "triggering source material." So sure, it's real, sort-of, but it's a meaningless discussion.

I'll stop there because I can't imagine a way to make my point(s) any less clear, but hopefully it made some kind of useless sense for anyone adept enough to sift through my fumbling!



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   


Because the right wing media is in full support of the police unless they unlawfully murder someone. And besides that, they don't advocate the murder of anyone they disagree with. That's just a leftist fantasy.


Except when law enforcement is trying to collect lawfully owed dues by whiny petulant entitled cattle ranchers.
Then they're fascist commie big bad government enforcers that have to be resisted because of second amendment oppression taxes immigrants & stuff.

K~
edit on 2-12-2015 by aethertek because: words



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: LSU0408




Which still doesn't prove one way or another that the killer was anything more than a crazy maniacal nut job.


Yes but it was a text book case of the rhetoric that is stochastic terrorism.
Which is why I posted her comments & then in big capital letters pointed out that fact for those still confused.
Are you still confused?
Oh & just so you're aware stochastic terrorism kinda relies on the crazy & mentally susceptible to be most effective. Though it will also work on many average minds as well, especially those that rely on authority figures to tell them what & how to think.

Here lets try this,,,,
So crazy man is mumbling "no more baby parts" when arrested, gee where did he get that idea.
Golly gosh why so specific, hmm "baby parts" now where have I heard that before, recently too?
www.cc.com...

Now don't forget, Baby Parts.

K~


So you're saying that those videos of the PP employees saying the crunch the babies' thorax and heads to keep the other organs intact and the woman saying she'll buy a lambo or whatever it was, are exposing videos that should be left in the dark? If a person can't handle the real world, they belong in a padded room. Any such corruption like those videos should be brought to light for all to see. You blame the one filming undercover, I blame the one talking in the film, not knowing they were being recorded.

Either way, anyone that disagrees with that will mumble under their breath, I'm sure you mumble under your breath when things arise that you disagree with too, no?

Point is, the guy was a loony tune, nothing more.

You're claiming those leaked videos led to the demise of 3 people. That's what you're considering to be the stochastic terrorism here and personally, I don't think you could stretch this any further than that.

I'm not sure what the motive of all this was, but I'm just here to find the proof that this guy was a right-wing Conservative Christian terrorist that was led on by right-wing hate speech and propaganda, aka stochastic terrorism (a new word for us all even though it exists all throughout ISIS and BLM but has never been used), and so far, nobody has shown that proof.

Golly gosh, you think he said the n word 45 years ago too? Evil SOB!



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LSU0408

Whining? Hardly. It's disgust because it appears that rational thought and reason takes a backseat to ignorance and stupidity.....and we're expected to take it seriously.



A knee jerk reaction would be crying out that the killer in this scenario is a right-wing Conservative Christian terrorist without one valid link of proof, and it's being screamed from the highest mountain tops.


I haven't said anything like that, so what's your point?


You haven't been claiming that since yesterday?


Nope. Please find any post of mine where I said he was a right wing conservative terrorist. I've used very specific language to ensure that I did not speak in absolutes and I only wanted to talk about the possibility of this man being brainwashed by right wing propaganda.

For some reason, we still have not discussed that possibility. People keep avoiding it like the plague.



The conspiracy you blew out of the water, unintentionally I'm sure, is that he was pushed by "right-wing propaganda talk."


Actually, if you read your post I responded to, it was about him targeting cops because of liberal propaganda.

You really need to keep up man. This isn't climate science. It shouldn't be hard.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23
That was clear and insightful. You fumbled well.

Only one thing to add, and that is that we humans may not easily be able to make sense of this but for the occasional a-ha! moment, but what of the tools out there in both the public and private sectors currently being used to sift through, analyze, and de-randomize (if you will) all the mountains of tetabytes of data out there? For uses we can both imagine and not.

I think one I ran across was called SOMA. I'll see if I can find it again later.

Yeah yeah...Minority Report and all,, but these things rely heavily on historical trends. And we're giving them plenty of history.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LSU0408

I've yet to see any evidence.


Nor will you by simply dismissing what is presented to you because you're too skeptical to read it.


So you think this guy is a right-wing Conservative Christian that was persuaded by right-wing talk shows? And yes, I'm skeptical of the "rightwingwatch" site. Perhaps if it was an op-ed piece from a credible name I'd be more likely to believe it. I don't post stories from Breitbart or the likes either because I know the left thinks they're invalid sites.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
he shot up a PP clinic, killing 3 and wounding 11....100% right-wing anti-abortionist....that's been the case in everyone of those previous planned parenthood attacks....he could have gone anywhere and done this, but, he chose a PP clinic...


Link?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: ketsuko

What you say is true, in regards to essentially a slippery slope toward the silencing of opinions, and I'm in full agreement with you there, but, it doesn't mean it's not real (to a degree.) I think there is a mindset which lends itself toward a certain breed of psychopathy which is more likely to "become the missile" in such a case.

I don't have a fully flushed-out definition, and it's not something exclusive to either of the silly political "sides" in the US. It requires a blend of "feed" for the (ultimate) perpetrator: part fear, part repetetively reinforced paranoias, part "perceived Just Anger", and more. The person perpetrating such an act believes they must act, and likely, in their perception, can't believe someone else hasn't stepped up to the plate already.

A person not suceptible to distortions of truth and proportion wouldn't be inclined to act (obviously, none of the rest of us were), but imagine the circumstances amplified/multiplied to a point where it made sense to take drastic action that you felt justified in, even if it meant the literal or figurative end of your own life and that of others - that's what such a susceptible person experiences.

The problem is, there's no way to stop it. If "inciteful" media saturation were stopped (whether 'real' or 'fabricated'), it would simply change the threshold. There's people out there one step away from going on a killing spree to stop the birth of the next "Bat Boy" if the Enquirer suggested it was imminent.

I guess what trying to get at is that the idea of "stochastic terrorism" is really just a way of linking the "source material" which a person's psychopathic tendencies fed off of as having some kind of responsibility for the event. No matter how restrictive any form of speech became, there would be someone unhinged enough to take inappropriate measures, based on the way they process information, which could be linked back to the "triggering source material." So sure, it's real, sort-of, but it's a meaningless discussion.

I'll stop there because I can't imagine a way to make my point(s) any less clear, but hopefully it made some kind of useless sense for anyone adept enough to sift through my fumbling!


Exactly. And if that's the case then there is a much stronger case to link to the cold blooded murder of police all over America. I just find it to be a twisted stretch of hypocrisy to never use that term or reasoning until there is a slightly remote chance that a crazed idiot shoots up an abortion clinic could possibly have that little tiny chance of being a right-wing Conservative, and a Christian, and of course white. I would also assume that it's just a coincidence that we're less than a year away from our next presidential election and suddenly there is hate speech by the right that is leading to "terrorist" attacks on abortion clinics.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek


Because the right wing media is in full support of the police unless they unlawfully murder someone. And besides that, they don't advocate the murder of anyone they disagree with. That's just a leftist fantasy.


Except when law enforcement is trying to collect lawfully owed dues by whiny petulant entitled cattle ranchers.
Then they're fascist commie big bad government enforcers that have to be resisted because of second amendment oppression taxes immigrants & stuff.

K~


Probably due to the likes of stochastic terrorism on behalf of the left-wing propaganda hate speech media.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LSU0408

Whining? Hardly. It's disgust because it appears that rational thought and reason takes a backseat to ignorance and stupidity.....and we're expected to take it seriously.



A knee jerk reaction would be crying out that the killer in this scenario is a right-wing Conservative Christian terrorist without one valid link of proof, and it's being screamed from the highest mountain tops.


I haven't said anything like that, so what's your point?


You haven't been claiming that since yesterday?


Nope. Please find any post of mine where I said he was a right wing conservative terrorist. I've used very specific language to ensure that I did not speak in absolutes and I only wanted to talk about the possibility of this man being brainwashed by right wing propaganda.

For some reason, we still have not discussed that possibility. People keep avoiding it like the plague.



The conspiracy you blew out of the water, unintentionally I'm sure, is that he was pushed by "right-wing propaganda talk."


Actually, if you read your post I responded to, it was about him targeting cops because of liberal propaganda.

You really need to keep up man. This isn't climate science. It shouldn't be hard.


I apologize then.

Yeah if this was a climate science class, we wouldn't be allowed to think for ourselves.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
So you think this guy is a right-wing Conservative Christian that was persuaded by right-wing talk shows? And yes, I'm skeptical of the "rightwingwatch" site. Perhaps if it was an op-ed piece from a credible name I'd be more likely to believe it. I don't post stories from Breitbart or the likes either because I know the left thinks they're invalid sites.


I think he's right wing yes. He's also a Christian. He's a horrible christian imo however and probably further right than the majority but a right wing christian all the same.

Even Breitbart presents facts some of the time. I don't like them and am skeptical when they are the source but I'll still verify what they say before I dismiss them.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23

Well, we could go deeper.

If it's the opinion on an action and the expression of it that sets people off, then maybe we ought to look at the action itself that prompted the expression of the opinion.

Maybe, it wasn't actually right-wing talk that incited the person but the act of abortion and selling baby parts which is basically what PP does whether or not you want to euphemistically call it fetal tissue to make yourself feel better about it.

Maybe when that former news reporter shot his colleagues on air, it wasn't anyone talking about how supposed racists and homophobes act, it was actually how his colleagues behaved that set him off whether or not he misinterpreted their actions is beside the point.

Let's just cut the middlemen out here and go for the jugular. I was always taught that actions speak louder than words anyhow.

Because really, to say otherwise is to more or less tell the world that everyone is too stupid to see something happening and figure out how they should think or feel about it until someone else tells them.
edit on 2-12-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: aethertek


Because the right wing media is in full support of the police unless they unlawfully murder someone. And besides that, they don't advocate the murder of anyone they disagree with. That's just a leftist fantasy.


Except when law enforcement is trying to collect lawfully owed dues by whiny petulant entitled cattle ranchers.
Then they're fascist commie big bad government enforcers that have to be resisted because of second amendment oppression taxes immigrants & stuff.

K~


Probably due to the likes of stochastic terrorism on behalf of the left-wing propaganda hate speech media.


Oh for christs sakes are you ^^&%%$ kidding me.
That's your answer? Hard core right wing pundits like that little weasel Hannity & his compatriots backed Bundy & the militia goons for the "left wing propaganda hate speech media"

How can you post such ignorant nonsense in I'm assuming complete sincerity?
You actually believe that crap your spouting?

K~



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That's pretty good. I remember wanting to give it more stars.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

This entire premise is about "middleman" culpability. And I still believe it's a vaild one.

A person can be upset by something and then have something else, either related or unrelated, push them over the edge.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Funny, the way I remember it Jesus said that to "love God first" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" were the only two Commandments needed.

I'm not surprised that you're a bigger Old Testament fan though; many members of the American Religious Right are.

You merely sidestepped the question of your belief that you are a "true" Christian and others who don't agree with your politics aren't. I guess Jesus' words about "judging not" aren't important either, eh? In the meantime you're setting yourself up in the position of that final Judge you believe in, huh?

I'm sure your answer is something along the lines of "because I say so" though, so don't bother elucidating. /shrug
edit on 2-12-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Sounds like an excuse for failings on the part of the security services and administration, to me. If these acts are organised using mass media (by which I take it you mean social media) why aren't they picked up? Or are the tweets, etc, too cleverly encoded? How does the 'lone wolf' find the 'missiles' on Twitter when restricted to covert messages and 138 letters and unable to radicalise without revealing himself? Or do the 'missiles' find the wolf? How?

This has to be one of the weakest defences for actual acts carried out on a government's doorstep. Any mishap could be explained away this way: the recent group killings in the US, white police shooting black suspects, any riot, a doctors' strike... now 9/11? What next? Donald Trump's hair? Mrs Maloney losing her job peeling potatoes into the faces of minor celebrities?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23

Well put. For stochastic terrorism to be real though, there would have to be an element that is seeking out these individuals.
I think it is quite the contrary, I think these individuals seek out a source for their ire, be it religion or media or politics or just the gal on TV that kept giving him a certain look that was perceived as directed towards him. Great post!



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join