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.
Originally posted by theamnesiac
I see that the few people on this forum that have a real active interest in this case have assembled in this thread. Something crossed my mind a couple days ago: this case is might be the easiest assassination/massacre situations for the general public to pull strings at in history, in part because of the proliferation of the internet and in part because of many peculiarities and "things that just don't sit right" about this case.
The Virginia Tech shootings caused a buzz in the conspiracy community back in 2007 but interest seemed to die down very quickly (and there are many things about that case that still make me wonder). Every once in a while someone will kick up the dust about Cho and VT, but for the most part everyone's just kinda forgotten and moved on. However, because the target/targets are of such high profile this time around the public will most likely have a more vested interest in the trial and the psychodrama of it all, which therefore presents us with a very unique opportunity to try and stab at chinks in the armor of a conspiracy (if one is present in this situation) while the case is ongoing and fresh.
Think about if 9/11 happened today in a world where everybody has the internet and there are exponentially more online communities where people share information than in 2001. I think this might be where we find ourselves with the Tuscon shootings. If there is in fact a conspiracy going on with all of this, we are watching it happen in real-time.
Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by xuenchen
Yes I heard this too my friend . Apparently his mother and Giffords attend the same small synagogue ?
I dont know if its true but if it were , id say it looks suspicious very much so .
Do you have any kind of source for this? Even if it's just hearsay from a forum post I am interested in reading it. As Christoph Waltz said in Inglorious Basterds: "Facts can be so misleading, where rumors, true or false, are often revealing."
@filosophia: can you elaborate more on this "blocked confiscation" by Judge Roll? This is the first I've heard of anything like that. I'm really starting to come around to the idea that Giffords may not have been the intended target. More information about the Roll angle would be appreciated.
Originally posted by xuenchen
AND there's even MORE!!!
from Jan 11 2011:
On Saturday in Tucson, Jared Lee Loughner allegedly used a Glock 19—a lightweight, $500 semi-automatic commonly carried by law enforcement officials—to kill six people and injure 13 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. In 2007, Cho Seung-Hui used the same gun, along with a Walther P22, to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech before committing suicide.
And Giffords herself boasted to the New York Times in 2010: "I have a Glock 9 millimeter, and I'm a pretty good shot."
see the article
can anyone find the NYT article?
[color=cyan]if so, forward it to the Sarah Palin people!
oh wait ... here it is!
www.nytimes.com...
AND,
Politically, Ms. Giffords, 40, is as passionate as she is independent.
She is a longtime proponent of gun rights and tough border security — she once put out a news release ahead of President Obama announcing an increase of troops at the border.
She also sided with motorcycle riders who favor state legislation to ride helmet-free, as she does.
see: topics.nytimes.com...
are these "sources" really "reliable"????
edit on 25-1-2011 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by filosophia
Why so long of a wait?
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, then that is a due process violation which offends the rule of law.
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Originally posted by filosophia
Why so long of a wait?
Perhaps it's called due process for a reason.
Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Doomzilla
online.wsj.com...
this says that Loughner was silent in court, and the media was talking about how an insanity plead would go over. I'm thinking, unfortunately, that if there is a conspiracy Loughner may be "in on it" which is not what I would want but it does seem like it is the case, otherwise I am wondering why he is not trying to give his side of the story. Maybe he is waiting for trial but I don't trust his lawyer, she's too high profile. Unfortunately with this case we have to do a lot of waiting. But I for one will not give up the chase, and I know others feel the same way. Let's stay strong.
Originally posted by Doomzilla
IS this case fake from start to finish ?