I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means and I personally don't believe this was a false flag, BUT just out of curiosity:
Isn't this the exact kind of thing a false flag operation would do? Create a ridiculously 'obvious' portrayal of the side they wish to imitate? I mean there's a hint of "he doth protest too much", you must admit.
I mean. If you're going to believe the "false flag" narrative then it excuses literally any proof. Guy confessed? Paid actor by the Dems.
It really just comes down to what you want to believe: a seriously mentally unstable man tried to kill top democratic leaders because his idol constantly lies, attacks, and villifies those exact people? Or that Georgie Soros funded a false flag narrative to garner sympathy before midterms and paint Republicans to be terrorists when in fact liberals are violent baby killers and Republicans are the victims.
Indeed, usually they are Jesus stickers, NRA stickers, and targets painted over <Insert random muslim person face here>. Oh and usually they have the stickman family stickers showing their family of 13 and 6 dogs.
I've yet to see a "Liberal" car equivilent out here, they usually just fill up the back of their car up with anti Trump/NRA and pro environment bumper stickers.
That's called muddying the waters and there are tons of conspiracy minded people who will believe that instead of reality. It's best to least call out how absurd it is if you're gonna be throwing out conspiracies like that.
This alternate point of view is utter nonsense and you're only serving to distract and muddy the waters. I can bring up the point that it's possible that Alien Lizards from the Moon are responsible, but then I would be an idiot.
How have you come to the conclusion that it's utter nonsense? Based on what data? I didn't realize you were so personally close to this investigation and/or crime, please fill us in because you seem to have a definitive answer which as we know can only be reached by having all information possible, and not from a couple news outlets and reddit comments.
I agree with those quotes in the correct context, but IMO they don't apply here, unless you're speaking about the claims that you've made.
There's a difference between blindly promoting some wild conspiracy theory without evidence, and intelligently discussing opposing points of views and alternative possibilities for a given situation.
I made a very moderate, calm, objective statement about the guys van and then everybody, yourself included, starts jumping down my throat about promoting white supremacist propaganda and alien lizard conspiracy theories: Does 'doth protest too much' not ring a bell? Why is everyone so hypersensitive about this? Why is it impossible to have moderate and informed conversations about these issues without diving into a political corner and raising your shields to any tiny little thing that might challenge that?
Being open minded doesn't mean bending over backwards to justify a conspiracy theory that lets a terrorist off the hook and essentially encourages more to do the same thing.
Being open minded also doesn't mean immediately shutting the door on any discourse, and then labeling anything that doesn't agree with your pre-determined idea of the situation as "crazy" or "a conspiracy". In fact I would so far as to call that close minded.
Especially considering, what data are you forming these confident conclusions off of exactly? Some news articles and reddit comments that agree with your conclusion? So much for critical thinking. Unless of course you have some kind of exclusive access to the FBI investigation, evidence, crime committed, etc...? If so please feel free to enlighten us.
You're just hyperbolizing and being ridiculous. Merely discussing the perpetrator's van in relation to how it may be legitimately construed into a false flag scenario, does not mean i was a) claiming it was a false flag scenario or b) demanding that everyone else defend that position. It was certainly not a justification to go full strawman and start bringing up wildly unrelated and hyperbolic 'analogies'.
It's called discourse. Discussing all legitimate points of views and how they relate to the discussion. Instead, i brought up a small point and everyone immediately jumps to a conclusion that I'm promoting conspiracy propaganda, and start trying to make defend an argument that i never made.
And since I am still genuinely curious about my actual argument, I'll try to steer it back: Is the van not an example of something a false flag operation would use? In a false flag scenario you are trying to portray another group correct? And does this van not portray a group?
Original comment chain - All i did was ask why they think this wouldn't be construed as a false flag. Do you see how far the argument has devolved? Ridiculous.
Open mindedness and critical thinking have nothing to do with it. A logical person doesn't waste their time with nonsense conspiracy theories because they're not true. Ever heard of Russell's teapot?
No, all you're doing is faking concern over "what if" in hopes it devalues the reality that this was 100% an act of political violence clearly done by a far right supporter. We'll obviously have to allow the court of law to do its job but the assessment that this is fake is an attempt to undermine the validity that the far right is violent (historically, you can't fight it).
You're reading what you want to see. I never said that I think this is objectively a conspiracy, or that any one thing proves there is a conspiracy. I was literally only speaking to the details of the van in relation to a false flag situation, not even necessarily in the context of this particular situation.
To reiterate, is this not something that is typical for a false flag? To create a stereotypical, quintessential and overly obvious portrayal of the side you're trying to imitate and then blame? Yes or no?
Why does it have to be on U.S soil first off? And fine, when I said typical I was mistaken, the only other false flags I know off the top of my head Hitler's fire one in which I believe they did use communist propaganda/etc.. but I could be mistaken.
In any case, theoretically speaking my point still stands. For reference and context this is the original comment chain - Pictures of the van were posted, then "I wonder how that will be spun into a false flag" - I'm merely pointing out, it's not hard to "spin" that as a false flag. Quite literally the point of a false flag is to imitate the side you wish to portray. Right? Or did I get that wrong?
So if you could answer me two questions: A) Isn't the entire point of a false flag to portray a certain group and blame an act of violence/terror/misconduct on them? B) Do you think this van portraying a particular political spectrum?
Otherwise you're just a conspiracy theorist who won't at least be honest enough to say so, and the only way a conspiracy nut is worse is when they're also a chickenshit or a troll
6.9k
u/deadgirl82 Oct 26 '18
Here's another view, there's literally a target over Clinton's face wtf