rigorousintuition.ca

Grizzly » Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:19 pm wrote:
Missing Orlando Massacre 911 Audio¿ If you can disregard the "Jesus crap" at the end, this becomes very interesting.

One might check with RT and if they made a recording because I was channel surfing and randomly happened upon the news of this. They were the very first. This I can confirm. It took about a better part of a half hour for everyone to catch up. Then it slowly trickled in. BBC was second. I don't know how much they monitor police scanners of course, but they definitely got the tip first. So they could have the audio of these gaping holes.

MacCruiskeen » 17 Jun 2016 19:18 wrote:I'm no expert on the world's terrorist attacks. The four in the US & UK this century have certainly all been "PTB setups", yes.

Wait...only four?

MacCruiskeen » Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:53 pm wrote:
To state the obvious: One need not produce the actual culprit (X) in order to demonstrate that the case against another accused person (Y, deceased) is exceptionally weak. Why is this so hard to understand? Has the time-honoured legal principle of the burden of proof really been forgotten completely?

What gets seeded to the media aside, don't the burdens of that proof hinge upon a trial? Why would the prosecution be sharing evidence with the general public?

The people actually tasked with the burden of proof are not the team that's leaking "anonymously sourced" politicized talking points to, you know, *snickers involuntarily*, uh, "journalists."

WR, I know very well that there will be no trial. No public inquiry either, no public access to any relevant information, and no questions asked of The Authorities. Of course there won't be. The USA has been post-legal and post-real at least since the start of the The War on Terror. This is not news, nor is it even a secret; people just prefer to forget, ignore or suppress that knowledge. That's why they live in their TVs, And they often get really annoyed if you have the temerity to remind them of anything that happened more than five minutes ago, because you're spoiling their fun with all that context shit and that history bunk. Give the government a chance, man! Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, y'know! Take every case on its merits!

The post-real, post-legal principle now in operation is: "If you're dead then you're guilty of whatever we choose to accuse you of, and we need adduce no evidence whatsoever in support of our accusations." I am not exaggerating, not even slightly. See San Bernardino for perhaps the most crassly brutal application of that principle before Orlando.

WR wrote:Why would the prosecution be sharing evidence with the general public?

Why indeed? Why are they telling us, for instance, that Omar Mateen called the police to announce his support for ISIS? Why are they telling us that his wife said she loved him on the night of the massacre? Why are they feeding this stuff to the nation, and to the planet, and why anonymously? The answers aren't hard to guess.

In any case, exactly who is "the prosecution", in this post-legal post-real era? It appears to consist entirely of nameless "sources". "The prosecution" is a government whispering campaign conducted through the mass media, and precisely nothing else. (So much for the division of powers.)

WR wrote:The people actually tasked with the burden of proof are not the team that's leaking "anonymously sourced" politicized talking points to, you know, *snickers involuntarily*, uh, "journalists."

I don't quite get your point here. Who is, then, tasked with the burden of proof? What people are those? (Maybe I'm just missing a joke.)

MacCruiskeen » Sat Jun 18, 2016 1:26 pm wrote:WR, I know very well that there will be no trial. No public inquiry either, no public access to any relevant information, and no questions asked of The Authorities. Of course there won't be. The USA has been post-legal and post-real at least since the start of the The War on Terror. This is not news, nor is it even a secret; people just prefer to forget, ignore or suppress that knowledge. That's why they live in their TVs, And they often get really annoyed if you have the temerity to remind them of anything that happened more than five minutes ago, because you're spoiling their fun with all that context shit and that history bunk. Give the government a chance, man! Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, y'know! Take every case on its merits!.

The post-real, post-legal principle now in operation is: "If you're dead then you're guilty of whatever we choose to accuse you of, and we need adduce no evidence whatsoever in support of our accusations." I am not exaggerating, not even slightly. See San Bernardino for perhaps the most crassly brutal application of that principle before Orlando.

WR wrote:Why would the prosecution be sharing evidence with the general public?

Why indeed? Why are they telling us, for instance, that Omar Mateen called the police to announce his support for ISIS? Why are they telling us that his wife said she loved him on the night of the massacre? Why are they feeding this stuff to the nation, and to the planet, and why anonymously? The answers aren't hard to guess.

In any case, exactly who is "the prosecution", in this post-legal post-real era? It appears to consist entirely of nameless "sources". "The prosecution" is a government whispering campaign conducted through the mass media, and precisely nothing else. (So much for the division of powers.)

Extremely well-put!

Parallel construction and Fed corruption aside, there are actually working human beings tasked with the investigation here. (And verily, there are FBI agents tasked with subverting and controlling that very operation.)

Victim statements to police. Don't get shared with the public until trial. Crime scene photographs and CCTV footage. Doesn't get shared with the public until trial. Nobody in Orlando is running some public-access wiki of the evidence they're assembling, and that is a big part of why the smoking guns you're demanding aren't in your possession. For any crime.

I agree that the FBI are quite keen to prevent this from ever being argued in court.

Wombaticus Rex » Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:26 pm wrote:
Victim statements to police. Don't get shared with the public until trial. Crime scene photographs and CCTV footage. Doesn't get shared with the public until trial. Nobody in Orlando is running some public-access wiki of the evidence they're assembling, and that is a big part of why the smoking guns you're demanding aren't in your possession. For any crime.

But there will be no trial! Never. How can they try a corpse? They can't. So what's their excuse now?

I agree that the FBI are quite keen to prevent this from ever being argued in court.

"Quite keen"? Surely you jest. It never will be argued in court. Because there will never be a trial! So the excuses you list above are just transparently mendacious.

That's why they prefer their Designated Culprits safely and immediately dead. A surviving Designated Culprit, such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, necessitates an embarrassingly obvious show-trial. (It is not good for the USA to appear too openly fascist, at least not yet. It's bad PR.)

And that's why the FBI are still putting Omar Mateen's wife through the mangle (maybe literally, by now). I wasn't joking when I said her life is in serious danger. If she can not just deny but actually refute the FBI's version publicly (through phone records, for instance) then she has a much shorter life-expectancy than the average TV series.


The Family of Utter Evil

Some context, from back in the mists of time (via stillrobertpaulsen's blogpost at American Judas):

Officials: Man who knew Boston bombing suspect was unarmed when shot
By Sari Horwitz and Peter Finn, Published: May 29


A Chechen man who was fatally shot by an FBI agent last week during an interview about one of the Boston bombing suspects was unarmed, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

An air of mystery has surrounded the FBI shooting of Ibragim Todashev, 27, since it occurred in Todashev’s apartment early on the morning of May 22. The FBI said in a news release that day that Todashev, a former Boston resident who knew bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed during an interview with several law enforcement officers. ...

http://americanjudas.blogspot.de/2013/0 ... echen.html

Maybe we'll be told Noor Mateen attacked her FBI interrogators with a rolling-pin and therefore had to be shot.

Stay tuned.

Oh yeah, good point.

I'm fucking retarded, just ignore me.

The truther movement was quite exhaustive in its attempt to delineate suggestions of perpetrators of alleged false-flag attacks under the GWB administration; in recent years is everyone just too spooked by the threat of reprisals for doing so? I must admit it makes me more than a little anxious. Journalists would seem to be key partners in these operations, though. Especially with events like San Bernardino...

And that's why the FBI are still putting Omar Mateen's wife through the mangle (maybe literally, by now). I wasn't joking when I said her life is in serious danger. If she can not just deny but actually refute the FBI's version publicly (through phone records, for instance) then she has a much shorter life-expectancy than the average TV series.

from yesterday

to whit:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-orla ... red-2016-6

Wombaticus Rex » Sat Jun 18, 2016 1:37 pm wrote: I'm fucking retarded, just ignore me.

Be nice if others around here, who like to pepper their foolish diatribes with fucking this and fucking that would, even once, admit the same (or, even better, add this statement permanently to their sig).

identity » Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:31 pm wrote:

Wombaticus Rex » Sat Jun 18, 2016 1:37 pm wrote: I'm fucking retarded, just ignore me.

Be nice if others around here, who like to pepper their foolish diatribes with fucking this and fucking that would, even once, admit the same (or, even better, add this statement permanently to their sig).

Show me the most recent "diatribe" you can find. It is all mostly commentary and links. You need to get out more. A pointed fuck you gets you suspended, but a "I can't believe what I am fucking seeing here" is much different. Would you rather have people in their "diatribes" use the word "fuck" in a different language that way you don't understand it?

82_28 » Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:41 pm wrote:

identity » Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:31 pm wrote:

Wombaticus Rex » Sat Jun 18, 2016 1:37 pm wrote: I'm fucking retarded, just ignore me.

Be nice if others around here, who like to pepper their foolish diatribes with fucking this and fucking that would, even once, admit the same (or, even better, add this statement permanently to their sig).

Show me the most recent "diatribe" you can find. It is all mostly commentary and links. You need to get out more. A pointed fuck you gets you suspended, but a "I can't believe what I am fucking seeing here" is much different. Would you rather have people in their "diatribes" use the word "fuck" in a different language that way you don't understand it?

No problem here with "fucking" used as something to light-heartedly spice up the conversation, as you are occasionally inclined to use it, 82 (I'm from a cussing culture, so I certainly know the value of such!). I was thinking of instances where "fucking" is used as part of a conversational assault weapon (the verbal equivalent of the alleged killer's automatic rifle), with the speaker affecting a tone of indignant outrage to shoot down any questions, speculations, or observations which they, in their infinite wisdom, have deemed unworthy of being asked, raised, or shared on this board (if they cannot be raised here, of all places, why does this board even still exist???), going on to punish the offender by mounting a hostile attack upon their intelligence, ethics, values, and/or character. (The implication of this being, of course, that it is they alone who occupy the moral higher ground, and are therefore themselves the ones crowned with Virtue, who can see clearly where others here are deluded or deceived, if not downright Satanic.)

Just to add to what identity posted. He immediately PMed me and it ain't no thang between him and I. If anyone was wondering.

So the coast is clear to carry on.