Charlie Kirk assassinated at Utah campus event

Status
Not open for further replies.
xOzXbegj8lNv.jpeg

'a white man'
 
I tried to avoid my finace seeing it and then my teenage son sees it while browsing and then shows it to her. I really despise social media.

The constant doom scrolling has to stop. Especially now that his death is basically trauma porn for some folks ... Even the ones who are upset at it all.
 
Yeah, it's important to remember that the extremists are normally a minority in any given group. They speak the loudest and can cause a lot of damage, but the majority is (usually) far more moderate and reasonable.
That can be deceptive though. I read an article in European Conservative that spoke of Yugoslavia before their civil war:

In his Budapest lecture, Betz [a professor who is head of the war studies department at King's College London and an academic expert in civil war] warned that it takes only a tiny spark to ignite civil war. Just prior to the Yugoslav catastrophe, he said, overwhelming majorities of Yugoslavs polled said that they got along well with their fellow citizens of different ethnicities and religions. In the blink of an eye, they were at each other's throats.

Of course, Yugoslavia and USA is far from a 1:1 comparison, but it shows that the vitriol can be simmering under the surface until it's suddenly ignited. Once a civil war starts, atrocities begin and who knows how long it'll take before things settle.

I hope it never comes to it in USA or Europe, but ignoring signs and saying that it's impossible to happen in the modern Western world can lead to blindness of real risks.
 
Holy shit. I haven't paid any attention to this guy before. I'm genuinely shocked that this sort of thing is allowed on a mainstream platform like Twitch. And at the way he so casually talks about it and gets cheered on by a live audience like it's just some normal acceptable thing. WTF
Does that montage even include some of his "best" moments?

Dude is a retard, uber naive or the best troll ever



 
I hope it never comes to it in USA or Europe, but ignoring signs and saying that it's impossible to happen in the modern Western world can lead to blindness of real risks.

I can't see a scenario where there won't be a civil war in the not-so-distant future in Western Europe. It feels inevitable because not all cultures are compatible with each other.
 
So reddit has decided the shooter was 100% a right-wing groyper who shot Charlie because he wasn't right-wing enough. The science is settled on the issue, apparently.
 
That can be deceptive though. I read an article in European Conservative that spoke of Yugoslavia before their civil war:



Of course, Yugoslavia and USA is far from a 1:1 comparison, but it shows that the vitriol can be simmering under the surface until it's suddenly ignited. Once a civil war starts, atrocities begin and who knows how long it'll take before things settle.

I hope it never comes to it in USA or Europe, but ignoring signs and saying that it's impossible to happen in the modern Western world can lead to blindness of real risks.

That's why I put "(usually)" in my comment. I'm aware that there are examples in history that disprove the majority are moderate - civil wars were exactly what I was thinking about. I also hope it never comes to the USA or Europe, but the immediate aftermath of a graphic and public murder (this atrocity was viewed by millions and is still being viewed by new people - which is definitely impacting peoples' emotions) is not the best place to search for "signs" either. People are understandably worked up and it doesn't help that there are many who seem intent on fanning those flames further.
 
Last edited:
You don't have a very clear understanding of how civil war works. Personal firearms won't stop tanks, supersonic bombers, and drones, that is true.
I lived through a coup d'état in a miltary family. I think I know a thing or two.
That's why you ALSO need a good defensive military guarding borders to prevent an INVASION. Personal firearms are about making OCCUPATION untenable. Because, to no surprise, tank drivers, drone operators, and bomber pilots do actually have to get out and sleep, so if they are surrounded by an armed and hostile population they are trying to oppress, their personal security becomes EXTREMELY difficult.
An invasion from who? No it doesn't make it untenable. Unless you think army bases are free pickings at night time? The army would be more heavily fortified and experienced than a bunch of people who bought a rifle from their local best buy. Occupation is tenable even when there is military might defending, I don't know why you think a bunch of inexperienced people who bought a gun can stop that. Look at Ukraine or countless other countries where even with military technology they were overun by another army.
Trying to control cities, bridges, airfields, sources of resource production, power generation, manufacturing, refining, all the reasons WHY you would invade a region in the first place, an armed populace can make controlling those places almost impossible because guys in a tank or flying in a plane can't run an assembly line, process food, or build bridges.
They can't no, which is why you need service people who side with the tyranny in the first place for it to ever happen. The army would win, the army can control those bridges, not your average joe who bought a gun. They will have no power unless a faction of the army itself sides with them. I recommend watching Red Dawn (80's version, 'natch) to see the logistical difficulties that lightly armed guerrillas native to the region can inflict on invaders with superior technology. And then contemplate that if the US militiary was told to violently suppress, say Texas, that A TON the US military trigger pullers ARE FROM TEXAS, or have been in Texas, and might be sympathetic to Texas. You can start to see the difficulties in using the US military to 'pacify' certain regions of the US.
xJv4z3ESKcrwQ5ew.jpg


The US military is becoming a caste. The recruits are overwhelmingly from certain areas, because thats where the bases are, where it is more favorable to retirees, and 30% of recruits have a parent in the military, 70-80% have a family member in the military. Given that there are only 1.5mill active duty out of 350mill population, this is EXTREMELY insular, and getting mor
e so.

b3wzm0OZYPfGvhro.jpg


So if you are going to 'fear' the US Military, you need to take a good hard look at the data I've provided to see how unfounded that is in general, unless you live in New England I guess (and quite frankly, you can have it :P

An army can very easily wipe out your average joes with guns but what is the point? People bring up the Taliban or Vietnam as examples of primitive tech beating newer advanced tech but in Vietnam the Vietnamese lost 1,100,000 (half civilians) people vs 200,000 US and allied losses but it was the "hearts and minds" campaign that failed and ultimately made it an unwinnable war not that the punny weapons were a match for warplanes and helicopters. unless they straight killed everybody there the US couldn't win, they didn't win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese that they set out to do. They could have continued carpet bombing the hell out of that place but to what end? Millions more deaths? Same with the taliban in Afghanistan or Iraq. The US can occupy those places easily but what good is continued occupation if the Taliban have the hearts and minds of the people there in the end? Guns weren't even the big danger in places like that. Nowadays you send in a small drone and you can easily wipe out any armed militia. It was mainly IEDs that were a danger and yet we have such strict dual use chemical restrictions on civilians and less restrictive gun laws because the later is protected by an outdated law. Only because of the second amendment, because the right to keep and bear arms helped ensure states could form militias to check a government in the past. The government today though has a lot better tech that the civilian population doesn't have access to. It's not an even playing field anymore, it was when we had guns as the most advanced killing technology and the second amendment was made.
 
Last edited:

Tabloid article. She leaned way into hate.
I glanced at her whiny ass substack post about her firing and predictably is claiming she was fired for 'speaking out about political violence' and doesn't mention her racist remark. She also repeats the false quote doing the rounds of what Charlie supposedly said about black women, so she doesn't even have the most basic integrity or competence a journalist should have.
 
Where's the actual source for this? The Utah Sheriff County report says an interview with a family mentioned having a discussion about Kirk and how they didn't like him or the hate he spews.

I've seen this line twisted to say he killed him because the shooter was left wing and hated the antics of people like Kirk and now that the hate was because his beliefs were not far enough.

Beyond the initial line in the report of "didn't like Charlie Kirk" I've not seen a source to suggest the interpretations of this line.

Based on what's been shared, it sounds like both the shooter and some family members had oppositional views toward Kirk, but the reports don't reveal whether they had the same reasons or intensity of disagreement. At this moment, no further information is available, so anything beyond is speculation influenced by personal bias, in my opinion.

So reddit has decided the shooter was 100% a right-wing groyper who shot Charlie because he wasn't right-wing enough. The science is settled on the issue, apparently.

Considering this is Reddit you're talking bout, which is basically the internet's catch-all forum, open to just about every subject, you're probably seeing just one subreddit. I highly doubt it represents the whole platform. For example r/Conservative.
 
I glanced at her whiny ass substack post about her firing and predictably is claiming she was fired for 'speaking out about political violence' and doesn't mention her racist remark. She also repeats the false quote doing the rounds of what Charlie supposedly said about black women, so she doesn't even have the most basic integrity or competence a journalist should have.

Well the quote about black women I looked up. he was being specific about 3 black women, Sheila Jackson Lee was one of them. And I know of her reputation in congress among the interns. You did not want to work for her because she made interns lives hell. The guy I worked for made our life a lot of fun.
 


I can't help it, this is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time

I just wish Philip Seymour Hoffman was still alive to play the calm guy here in a film adaption
 
Last edited:
Viva Frei and Robert Barns covered this on rumble. If you don't know them, Viva I see as very moderate and is good at asking tough questions, like putting the shoe on other foot or devils advocate type stuff. Barns is libertarian, and I consider him to have a good track record when it comes to cases. He's called out Candace Owens and warned about Dominion machines having a winning lawsuit for example. They helped me keep my head straight on more than one occasion, so I recommend them.

We live in crazy times and all this information can be hard to digest. Talking with each other and asking questions is more important than ever
 
Viva Frei and Robert Barns covered this on rumble. If you don't know them, Viva I see as very moderate and is good at asking tough questions, like putting the shoe on other foot or devils advocate type stuff. Barns is libertarian, and I consider him to have a good track record when it comes to cases. He's called out Candace Owens and warned about Dominion machines having a winning lawsuit for example. They helped me keep my head straight on more than one occasion, so I recommend them.

We live in crazy times and all this information can be hard to digest. Talking with each other and asking questions is more important than ever

Thanks for the suggestion!
 
You don't have a very clear understanding of how civil war works. Personal firearms won't stop tanks, supersonic bombers, and drones, that is true. That's why you ALSO need a good defensive military guarding borders to prevent an INVASION.

Personal firearms are about making OCCUPATION untenable. Because, to no surprise, tank drivers, drone operators, and bomber pilots do actually have to get out and sleep, so if they are surrounded by an armed and hostile population they are trying to oppress, their personal security becomes EXTREMELY difficult. Trying to control cities, bridges, airfields, sources of resource production, power generation, manufacturing, refining, all the reasons WHY you would invade a region in the first place, an armed populace can make controlling those places almost impossible because guys in a tank or flying in a plane can't run an assembly line, process food, or build bridges.

I recommend watching Red Dawn (80's version, 'natch) to see the logistical difficulties that lightly armed guerrillas native to the region can inflict on invaders with superior technology. And then contemplate that if the US militiary was told to violently suppress, say Texas, that A TON the US military trigger pullers ARE FROM TEXAS, or have been in Texas, and might be sympathetic to Texas. You can start to see the difficulties in using the US military to 'pacify' certain regions of the US.

xJv4z3ESKcrwQ5ew.jpg


The US military is becoming a caste. The recruits are overwhelmingly from certain areas, because thats where the bases are, where it is more favorable to retirees, and 30% of recruits have a parent in the military, 70-80% have a family member in the military. Given that there are only 1.5mill active duty out of 350mill population, this is EXTREMELY insular, and getting mor
e so.

b3wzm0OZYPfGvhro.jpg


So if you are going to 'fear' the US Military, you need to take a good hard look at the data I've provided to see how unfounded that is in general, unless you live in New England I guess (and quite frankly, you can have it :P
Side topic. Why does NY State have hardly anyone? All the other big states seem to havw tons of people. Is it simply because the Virginia/N Carolina are close enough to NY their military will cover them?
 
Last edited:
Barnes is always interesting to listen to. Watching Viva fumble around with his tech constantly like he's 90 years old drives me crazy 😩
 
does anyone really think your guns are going to help you against a tyrannical government? I feel like most people agree guns are mostly for personal/home protection at this point. Not sure what your guns are going to do when they drone strike ur house :<
So by your logic it's nicer to be drone bombed unarmed? :unsure:
 
Side topic. Why does NY State have hardly anyone? All the other big states seem to havw tons of people. Is it simply because the Carolinas are close enough to NY they military will cover them?
My chart isn't where the military is based, but rather where recruits come from. There is a fair amount of overlap, as California, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia are all homes to massive military bases.

New York has Fort Drum with the 10th Mountain Division, West Point, and a couple much smaller places. I just don't think many folks retire to NY, so their kids don't come from there as a recruit. That whole area has a low representation in the military, folks GTFO to the South :P

In the US the active duty military is expressly PROHIBITED from operating within the nations borders (Posse Comitatus Act) so the locations of bases are more aligned with space for training, access to roads, rail, and ports to be shipped overseas, and where weather is more forgiving for year round training (this is why so many of the big bases are now in the southern US). So they are not placed for defensive purposes as we really have little to no need for it. The risk of military invasion from Canada is almost non-existent these days, and Mexico SHOULD be a border concern but we have only very limited authority to use the military to enforce that border. So our troops are mostly in remote areas, far from the large urban centers because it is cheap, we have the space to drive around shooting things, and then over time retirees clustered around those bases, their kids go into the military, and now we are here.

Culture plays a HUGE aspect as well. Big cities seem to have a reduced awareness of military service, I think the colleges in that areas are less likely to have ROTC, recruiters, etc. But go to some big Texas colleges and they are practically a direct military pipeline. The government is VERY aware of this trend and is trying to combat it because its getting closer to having a military that COULD turn on the coastal urban areas, and there are not enough rural farm boys anymore to meet the need. Whether the recruiting shift will work...that's a topic for another thread.
 
Just read the updates from the past few days, ooooft, not a gonna be a good time for the trans folks, especially if the "girlfriend" radicalised him.
 
My chart isn't where the military is based, but rather where recruits come from. There is a fair amount of overlap, as California, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia are all homes to massive military bases.

New York has Fort Drum with the 10th Mountain Division, West Point, and a couple much smaller places. I just don't think many folks retire to NY, so their kids don't come from there as a recruit. That whole area has a low representation in the military, folks GTFO to the South :P

In the US the active duty military is expressly PROHIBITED from operating within the nations borders (Posse Comitatus Act) so the locations of bases are more aligned with space for training, access to roads, rail, and ports to be shipped overseas, and where weather is more forgiving for year round training (this is why so many of the big bases are now in the southern US). So they are not placed for defensive purposes as we really have little to no need for it. The risk of military invasion from Canada is almost non-existent these days, and Mexico SHOULD be a border concern but we have only very limited authority to use the military to enforce that border. So our troops are mostly in remote areas, far from the large urban centers because it is cheap, we have the space to drive around shooting things, and then over time retirees clustered around those bases, their kids go into the military, and now we are here.

Culture plays a HUGE aspect as well. Big cities seem to have a reduced awareness of military service, I think the colleges in that areas are less likely to have ROTC, recruiters, etc. But go to some big Texas colleges and they are practically a direct military pipeline. The government is VERY aware of this trend and is trying to combat it because its getting closer to having a military that COULD turn on the coastal urban areas, and there are not enough rural farm boys anymore to meet the need. Whether the recruiting shift will work...that's a topic for another thread.
Ya, I misread your charts. Thanks for the write up.
 
"I think Tyler got a whole lot worse in the year they have been dating. They are big [video] gamers, and obviously they have that group that influences them as well as others. But my gut tells me [the roommate] did more of the influencing," the relative said.

So apparently it's the fault of gamers and this guy! Why? Because of the relative's gut!
He was playing Doom. That was the only reason.
 
I grew up on Postal where you use a cat as a silencer. Anyone making the video game connection is a moron. I'll probably only accept that logic once VR is so realistic it gives you ptsd
 
Has this been posted yet?
KIRK PROBE WIDENS Two arrested for 'planting bomb' near scene of Charlie Kirk murder as Trump says 'lots of people' under investigation

TWO men have been arrested for allegedly planting a bomb near the campus where Charlie Kirk was shot as Donald Trump revealed "lots of people" are being probed over his murder.

Adeeb Nasir, 58, and Adil Justice Ahme Nasir, 31, were taken in for questioning on Sunday after an explosive was discovered under a news media vehicle in Utah.

A bomb squad determined the device was lit but "failed to function as designed", adding that it posed a "significant" threat to public safety.

Unified Fire Authority Investigations officer Jeffrey David Nelson said: "Due to the nature of the device and its placement, this incident constituted a significant threat to public safety."

At the suspects' residence, investigator also found firearms, illegal drugs and hoax weapons of mass destruction.

These are devices that don't contain anything harmful but appear genuine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom