shooting at DC Holocaust museum

[MinM]

Rifle used in museum shooting too old to trace, official says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is not possible for authorities to trace the rifle used in this week's shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum to the original purchaser, a law enforcement source said Friday.

The source, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation, said the weapon is a Winchester Model 6, .22 caliber rifle -- a type of gun manufactured between 1908 and 1928 -- long before records were kept on gun purchases.

Authorities also were checking to see if the weapon had been used in any other crime, the source said...

[starviego]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/12/mus ... pstoryview
It is not possible for authorities to trace the rifle used in this week's shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum to the original purchaser, a law enforcement source said Friday. .... the weapon is a Winchester Model 6, .22 caliber rifle -- a type of gun manufactured between 1908 and 1928 -- long before records were kept on gun purchases.

------------

Comment: After the infamous Columbine High School massacre of 1999, police claimed that two shotguns used in the attacks could not be traced, as they were manufactured before 1968 and thus had no serial numbers. Later documents, released as a result of lawsuits filed by relatives, clearly show that both weapons DID have serial numbers, which were in fact used to trace the weapons. The lesson here is you really can't believe anything the government says at this point.

[vigilant]

I apologize for busting the margins on this page, but the blatant hypocritical racially motivated tripe in this thread begs for some easy visual clarity that can be understood at a glance.

This thread is a supreme example of why even though I love this forum, I took a break from writing here. Illusion and intentional misleading of people away from "facts", and blatant brow beating of people who produce too much "truth" by "fact" goes unchecked. Producing too many true "facts", even though their truth be no fault of those who allude to these "facts", is often discouraged, and colored in curious negative ways. Holding up obvious facts, is not racism, but people who hold them up for observation are "free game" for lying illusionists, and these lying illusionists are allowed, without impunity, to equate "fact finding" with racism, etc...its sickening....


AlicetheKurious wrote:Quote:
To what do you ascribe this strange 'encouragement' by the U.S. media "to blame immigrants, Moslems, poor people and etc."? Could it have anything to do with who is in a position to shape that media and its message?


American Dream wrote:
I'd say it's pretty clear that the U.S. is the global hegemon in a military/economic sense and to a significant degree, in a cultural sense also.

In the same spirit with which you write, i'll engage you as...I'd say its pretty clear that you are a racist nazi type mindset that hates people in the U.S. and Christians, and blames them for the world's problems, while blatantly lying and denying that obviously very powerful factions within Israel are complicit. The facts speak for themselves, and since below YOU DID INDEED DIRECTLY ASK FOR FACTS, WELL THEN THE CHART BELOW SHOULD SUFFICE. SHOULDN'T HAVE ASKED FOR REALITY HUH? You are not reality, you seek only to sway minds that are incapable of doing research and pulling reality from the mix of lies.




American Dream:
Please note that what I am referring to has little relation to what you allude to when making insinuations about how "they" run the U.S. media and government, where "they"=Zionists/Jews. I believe that this is an extremely misguided way of trying to make sense of the world.

Research, and the FACTS produced from it, make it necessary to inform you that roughly 96% of major media is owned by the same people you claim have no major influence in the area of media. But of course, these facts, even though I did not create them, will make "me" an anti semite won't they? Go ahead my man, say something such as, "Vigilant, you are saying that the Protocols are authentic, and that is anti-semitic"...I want you to. I hope you. I eat people like you for lunch, line by line, with FACTS, until they scurry back into their holes. (tastes like chicken)




American Dream wrote:
Especially given that this is a thread about a man who organized his life around global Jewish conspiracy models and other such racist tropes,
Yes it is, so you should stick to THAT, and stop inserting "bash points" about white folk and Christians from the U.S. and stop asking for FACTS BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW BAD YOU HATE THOSE THINGS.





American Dream wrote:
Pretty much everything that happens is grist for the propaganda mill, especially with regards to the "Israel Lobby" inside the United States, so without a doubt the shooting will be exploited to full effect.

This by itself proves nothing whatsoever about what may have motivated von Brunn, including in regards to alleged plots to discredit the supposed "truth" about a global Jewish conspiracy. No doubt though, allegations about this kind of thing will be surfacing in the weeks to come, originating from the usual "unbiased" sources.

Nobody in this thread said there was one, EXCEPT YOU. You do a great job of bringing attention to AIPAC though, should I post the dollar amounts they contribute, or would that be "too factual" for you? You are good at speaking for other people, 'in reverse'...

People are saying there is "Israeli involvement", not "Jewish Global Conspiracy", if you can't get past the fact that some of those Israeli's are Jewish that is your problem and your obsession. There is therapy for "obsessive compulsive disorder", perhaps you should check into it...

because you are a real buzz kill for those of us that could care less if an Israeli is Jewish, christian, brown skinned, white skinned, or any other ethnic, racial, or religous characteristic.

Some of us point out verifiable behavior, while some of you focus on and confuse verifiable behavior with race and religion. Get yourself a dictionary, it helps...

[Jeff]

I apologize for busting the margins on this page, but the blatant hypocritical racially motivated tripe in this thread begs for some easy visual clarity that can be understood at a glance.

Since margin busting is so bothersome, and I'm so thick, can you explain to me the point of it? How does the New Internationalist's illustration of corporate media concentration support your argument for - and this is your argument, no? - Jewish control of the media?

All such diatribe plays up your Eisners and your Sulzbergers--and plays down many other names: Jack Welch and Michael H. Jordan, CEOs, respectively, of GE (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS); Rupert Murdoch (who owns 20th Century Fox); John Malone, CEO of TCI, the nation's largest cable company; maverick globalist Ted Turner; and many more. Also tuned out are such goyische giants as Hearst Communications, Times Mirror, the Chicago Tribune's empire, Reader's Digest Inc.--and the Shintoist directorship of Sony (which owns Columbia Studios and Tri-Star Pictures).

Mark Crispin Miller

[American Dream]

vigilant knows full well that I would far rather floss a kitten's teeth than carry on a conversation with him, but he keeps acting as if he doesn't know this.

To repeat, as clearly as possible:

vigilant, I don't want to speak with you. Go talk to someone else if you want to, but not me.

[vigilant]

vigilant knows full well that I would far rather floss a kitten's teeth than carry on a conversation with him, but he keeps acting as if he doesn't know this.

To repeat, as clearly as possible:

vigilant, I don't want to speak with you. Go talk to someone else if you want to, but not me.

I can't say that I blame you. Flossing a kittens teeth would be your style. At least you could hold the vulnerable little thing down and abuse it. I'm a mountain lion and you know it. Floss my teeth chicken, I dare ya...I know your formula, and you know it.

I'll beat you with nothing but one true fact after another, that is easily verified. Facts you cannot refute.

I am a formidable adversary for those that only seek to lie. Were I you, I would not debate me under any circumstances, because as we both know, with facts, I will turn you into lunch, like chicken...


and much to my dismay, a 7 paragraph response to Jeff just vanished into the black hole of nothingness when i hit submit...but i will write it again...

and on edit...

since I don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that could, by "label", make me Jewish. Ok, if 'others' insist I be Jewish then i'll be Jewish. The label means nothing to me because fact, and the labels people attach to the people that produce facts, by their own actions, mean nothing to me.

Action speaks louder than words. I'll stick to actions, let you attach your labels, and still, the actions will be what they are.....meow

word to the wise...

[AlicetheKurious]

All such diatribe plays up your Eisners and your Sulzbergers--and plays down many other names: Jack Welch and Michael H. Jordan, CEOs, respectively, of GE (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS); Rupert Murdoch (who owns 20th Century Fox); John Malone, CEO of TCI, the nation's largest cable company; maverick globalist Ted Turner; and many more. Also tuned out are such goyische giants as Hearst Communications, Times Mirror, the Chicago Tribune's empire, Reader's Digest Inc.--and the Shintoist directorship of Sony (which owns Columbia Studios and Tri-Star Pictures).

Mark Crispin Miller

Ted Turner?

June 18, 2002:

Ted Turner, the billionaire founder of CNN, accuses Israel today of engaging in "terrorism" against the Palestinians, in comments that threaten to lead to a further decline in the news network's already poor relations with the Jewish state.

"Aren't the Israelis and the Palestinians both terrorising each other?" says Turner, who is vice-chairman of AOL Time Warner, which owns CNN, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.

"The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers, that's all they have. The Israelis ... they've got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing. So who are the terrorists? I would make a case that both sides are involved in terrorism."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/ju ... dia.israel


May 26, 2003:

So Turner has lost his money, his ability to save humanity, and what else? Ah, yes. His power. In January, when he announced that he would retire from AOL Time Warner at the annual shareholders' meeting in May, most people viewed the move as an inevitable result of his diminished status within the company. Turner himself likened his role to "Emperor of Japan." Shorn of operating authority, he couldn't even get CNN--his own creation!--to air Avoiding Armageddon, his eight-hour documentary on weapons of mass destruction.

There were many such insults eating away at him, most of which he blames on former CEO Gerald Levin. The one that caused him to quit, he reveals here, was quite specific: Neither CEO Richard Parsons nor anyone else among the AOL Time Warner brass consulted him about a change in the top management of CNN. (Network chief Walter Isaacson resigned, and Jim Walton replaced him.) "It was the final straw," Turner says. Parsons declines to comment.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... /index.htm



Rupert Murdoch?


Murdoch's strong personal and business attachments to Israel led him to become a strong political backer and close friend of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. His favorable coverage of the Israeli government has not really been reciprocated—Murdoch has faced legal trouble in Israel for tax reasons—but he has received recognition in the U.S.: in 1982 the American Jewish Congress in New York voted Murdoch "Communications Man of the Year."

Murdoch's close relationship with Sharon and heavy investment in Israel led former Times Africa correspondent Sam Kiley to resign his position. "The Times foreign editor and other middle managers flew into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble or complaint," Kiley said, "and then usually took [the lobby's] side against their own correspondent...No pro-Israel lobbyist ever dreamed of having such power over a great national newspaper." After one conversation in which Kiley was asked not to mention a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who was killed by Israeli troops, the reporter "was left wordless, so I quit."

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/june2003/0306024.html


And those were just two that jumped out at me from that excerpt of that 1996 article you quoted, Jeff. It's 2:15 am here, so I have to go, but maybe I can go over that list of names in more detail tomorrow..er, later today.

[Jeff]

And those were just two that jumped out at me from that excerpt of that 1996 article you quoted, Jeff. It's 2:15 am here, so I have to go, but maybe I can go over that list of names in more detail tomorrow..er, later today.

And they provide good examples of the right-wing/pro-Israel bias of Western media conglomerates. What von Brunn sees instead is a communist Jewish conspiracy.

[vigilant]

I must say this is a turn of events that causes me to find happiness in the fact that my prior 7 paragraph response got lost in the wash when I hit the submit button. If this had been posted earlier my response would have been much different. I confess ignorance in my ability to reconcile these two entries, as they pertain to the information about corporate media ownership I supplied earlier in this thread.

My post was, even though you Jeff did not call it a "diatribe", seemingly was compared to one. The word "diatribe" though, on its own, is for me, meaningless, as I often see it affiliated with facts that someone has decided not to refute with further facts that have capability of negating the so called "diatribe". Facts stand or fall on their merit, by the actions of their makers, and not with their affiliation with a label such as "diatribe".



Jeff wrote:
vigilant wrote:
I apologize for busting the margins on this page, but the blatant hypocritical racially motivated tripe in this thread begs for some easy visual clarity that can be understood at a glance.


Since margin busting is so bothersome, and I'm so thick, can you explain to me the point of it? How does the New Internationalist's illustration of corporate media concentration support your argument for - and this is your argument, no? - Jewish control of the media?

All such diatribe plays up your Eisners and your Sulzbergers--and plays down many other names: Jack Welch and Michael H. Jordan, CEOs, respectively, of GE (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS); Rupert Murdoch (who owns 20th Century Fox); John Malone, CEO of TCI, the nation's largest cable company; maverick globalist Ted Turner; and many more. Also tuned out are such goyische giants as Hearst Communications, Times Mirror, the Chicago Tribune's empire, Reader's Digest Inc.--and the Shintoist directorship of Sony (which owns Columbia Studios and Tri-Star Pictures).

Mark Crispin Miller



AlicetheKurious wrote:
And those were just two that jumped out at me from that excerpt of that 1996 article you quoted, Jeff. It's 2:15 am here, so I have to go, but maybe I can go over that list of names in more detail tomorrow..er, later today.



jeff wrote:
And they provide good examples of the right-wing/pro-Israel bias of Western media conglomerates. What von Brunn sees instead is a communist Jewish conspiracy.


So my illustration that corporate media ownership is owned largely by people wih interests that are Pro Isreal, with emphasis that the Jewish religion is not important nor stressed by me, is compared to "diatribe". Your response to Alice's illustrations validate my illustration of ownership.

My illustration, and my need to distance it from religion, obviously was born from the need to seperate human actions from religous labels that American Dream insist be applied, and for no other reason. They can crucify Jesus again for all I care, because quite frankly, I don't believe Jesus ever existed anyway, and I wouldn't care if he did because it would not change who owns, or does not own, the bulk of media.

So...I remain confused....the point is?

[StarmanSkye]

Nothing I've ever read on this forum has convinced me that self-identified Jews sharing a strong sense of religious and cultural persecution and united in advancing a Jewish state in Israel don't mutually facilitate a wide variety of active and ongoing international commerce, cultural, political, military and ideological relations, associations, productions and businesses. While I would hesitate to call them 'conspiracies', I think it's self-evident that the majority of informal associations are clearly well-organized, funded and networked enterprises, and only a minority are criminal. But it also occurs to me -- many of the most vocal mainstream voices vehemently objecting that there is a global Jewish Conspiracy are adamant in their conviction that there IS a global Muslim and Arab Jihadi Conspiracy -- tho it seems to me the evidence for the latter is far less evident or compelling.

Throughout history, like-minded individuals have organized mutual-aid and assiatance associations to further their special-interest priorities, whether designed as defense or to further a common cause. Is the thesis disavowing an extensive mutual-assiastance association of Jews in support of Zionism based on a moral, logistical or intellectual reason? Is it because Jews are not as serious or dedicated, or capable of organization, or willing to make full use of opportunities to strengthen and support their religious, economic or political community in furtherance of their self-defense and common-cause interests? Why should or would Jews be different than Catholics, or Muslims, or Protestants, or a myriad number of minority and ex-pat residents in foreign lands who settle in a close, familiar community in foreign nations and recreate many of the same political, religious, cultural and social structures they keenly identify with? Numerous special-interest groups based on politics or ethnicity or religion or culture or nationality develop and strengthen mutually-supportive economic relations among themselves and in fiurhterance of a common long-range goal or key ideal. Why wouldn't self-identified Jews be willing to do the same in furtherance of a common religious principle or heritage such as the nation or state of Israel and establishment of Zion in historical lands? Is it that they wouldn't, or couldn't, or that it is potantially embarrassing or threatening or risky to openly acknowledge the same? I sure don't believe that self-professed followers of Judaism are inherantly more noble, or righteous, or evil or stupid than any other ethnic or religious group. So why wouldn't they take advantage of their position and wealth or connections or business opportunities, as Masons or trade association members or other special interest members do, to further their common cause? Isn't there an actual if not just implied religious and ethical duty for all of the Bible-based religious faiths to enrich and strengthen their common spiritual and worldy 'community'? Why is there so much effort made to discredit what otherwise is normal and common, for Irish and Italians, Catholics and Hindus, tribal-members and a wide range of 'group' member participants who closely identify with one another, but for some reason active followers of Judaism and staunch Zionists don't? (or won't?)

A whole lotta protest thou (them?) too muchly doth do, methinks.

And yeah, this issue really DOES bug me. Like saying, of COURSE Jews, like Marxists and Communists and like Republicans and Mafia wouldn't, couldn't, and don't organize & conspire to mutually enhance and support their common interests!

Or is the crit JUST over the admittedly loaded word 'conspiracy' instead of 'organization' or 'combine', franchise or 'cartel'?

I think its silly to say Jews don't help one another & mutually promote their special cause(s), while other groups very obviously do.

Part of the problem may be that Israel is not just a religious ideal and historical reference, but also a political entity, a modern nation-state with overtly racist ideology, a system of cultural mores and values, and a socio-economic organization.

[American Dream]

Well it would certainly be untrue to claim that ideological Zionists never get together and work towards common goals.

However we also often see this model taken to the level of the ridiculous, as for example the claims that "the Zionists" decide everything the United States does, and hence rule the world.

Isn't the truth likely to be found somewhere in between?


.

[vigilant]

Well it would certainly be untrue to claim that ideological Zionists never get together and work towards common goals.

However we also often see this model taken to the level of the ridiculous, as for example the claims that "the Zionists" decide everything the United States does, and hence rule the world.
Isn't the truth likely to be found somewhere in between?


.

Please reference that statement in this thread, and not your paranoid inference that "it must be so", because...err...well....."you" demand it is in this thread, regardless of the FACT that it isn't.

thank you

[Jeff]

My post was, even though you Jeff did not call it a "diatribe", seemingly was compared to one.

The comparison was your own -

In the same spirit with which you write, i'll engage you as...

- and I have difficulty sometimes parsing the vitriol-soaked meaning of such posts.

So...I remain confused....the point is?

My issue was this:

Research, and the FACTS produced from it, make it necessary to inform you that roughly 96% of major media is owned by the same people you claim have no major influence in the area of media.

Since I'm fairly certain AD acknowledges both media concentration and its bias towards Israel, I didn't know who these people you mention who own roughly 96% of major media might be, other than Jews. Still don't, actually.

[Percival]

THIS THREAD IS ALL FUCKED UP AND UNREADABLE NOW, FUCKING BLOODY HELL CHRIST ALMIGHTY FIX THE SHIT SO WE CAN ENJOY READING IT WITHOUT ALL THE GOD DAMNED SCROLLING FROM SIDE TO SIDE.


Bloody fucking hell I HATE that! It was such a good thread until now too.

[compared2what?]

THIS THREAD IS ALL FUCKED UP AND UNREADABLE NOW, FUCKING BLOODY HELL CHRIST ALMIGHTY FIX THE SHIT SO WE CAN ENJOY READING IT WITHOUT ALL THE GOD DAMNED SCROLLING FROM SIDE TO SIDE.

Bloody fucking hell I HATE that! It was such a good thread until now too.

Well. If you can call finding yourself trapped in a nightmare world in which the twin streams of noxious rhetoric that mutually antagonistic and hate-filled professional propagandists have been pumping into the atmosphere for decades have now reached such high levels of saturation that in effect at least for rhetorical purposes, it sometimes seems that they might as well have become the atmosphere, since there's so little fresh air left that even people of integrity who would suffocate before they would willingly draw in a breath that breathed greater life into the vicious and oppressive forces they're committed to opposing can barely speak without starting to choke "good," then I agree with you!

Also, I'm doing what I can on your behalf to kick it to the next page by using many more words than I need to in order to express something that doesn't, strictly speaking, even need to be expressed. But even my naturally prolix style has its natural limits, I'm sorry to say, since I think I've now reached them. Although I guess it never hurts to remark that it's really astonishing how truly influential Lyndon Larouche has ended up being, in view of how mind-numbingly and monotonously unoriginal, petty and pedantic a writer, thinker he actually is. When you get right down to it. Not to mention -- as far as one can tell absent sustained, firsthand experience, which I concede it not so far that it constitutes more than an impression based on partisan witness accounts, and therefore not far enough to speak to the subject with any degree of authority -- how insane, unpleasant, and corrupt an individual he appears to be. To boot.

Personally, I would never in a million years have predicted it, back in the day when dodging Larouchites was a more regular part of my quotidian existence.

So color me astonished.

Also, don't say I never did anything for you, Percival.

Here's hoping that this sees you on the jump.