Capitol Hill shooting

One of the purposes of using InfoWars as a source was for me to observe the general Southperrian reaction to its "extremist" interpretation of another incident of police brutality. As expected, I received very negative responses when I posted links to an alternative media source that approaches the topic from a different angle. If, instead, I had posted links to The Washington Post or The New York Times (news sources that most people would regard as neutral, when in fact they're actually biased too), or if I had named the title of this thread to one that does not sound so controversial, this sort of reaction would not have been exhibited.

You have been trained to instantaneously perceive your typical mainstream media (which does include those seemingly "credible" newspaper articles such as the ones I just referenced above) as a "reliable source", and all other sources as radical, misinformed, and having no basis. Then, I am subsequently attacked for "not having done enough research", or labeled as a mere conspiracy theorist. (I didn't even give my own opinion toward how I feel about this incident, or why I decided to choose these sources in particular to engage a discussion, when I started this thread. But I guess it's implied that I must completely agree with the content of the sources that I use.)

I sincerely believe it is up to the reader to use his/her discretion in finding the truth in news, and I happen to be one of the increasing number of people that tends to side with alternative media. While I don't completely agree with the way Alex Jones makes his hyperbolic assertions, I do agree with the underlying idea of what he has to say about these incidents that involve the government. Their reports may be exaggerated, and their views may be overemphasized, but it is with the good intention of pushing their agenda to expose and publicize the corruption of the shadow government that is destroying the inherent liberties and freedoms of the American people.

@user;

You use infowar as a source? Well there goes your f`ucking credibility LOL.

If you actually did the proper research, the car was being, by definition, used as a weapon. The cops actions are undeniably justified.

Yes, it's a source that I've placed my trust in for a very long time. I'm not going to ask why you think it's not credible though.

If I did consider the vehicle to have been used as a weapon, then under that definition of it being considered a "potential threat" to them, I would actually agree with you that what the police had to do was necessary, and therefore, justified. I know it's futile to question the legality of it, but it's just absurd to me how that woman was essentially being treated as a domestic terrorist.

Here, however, I see it as more of a case where an unarmed woman is shot down by the police, in front of her own child, because she was in a state of frenzy and took a few wrong turns. When you have a swarm of armed grown men in uniform yelling with their guns pointed at you, a fight-or-flight response (escaping the imminent danger, which is the police) is just natural. I interpreted it as the government reminding their slaves people that they will be killed if they disobey.

Also, I just feel that it's a bit irresponsible to say that I did not do a thorough job of researching; after reading through what was available and juxtaposing their content, I decided to share the articles that I found to be closer to the truth. Honestly asking, is there something wrong with what I've done? Or are you just expressing your disagreement with what I've posted?

[COLOR="#cc8899"]I would hardly call this an "execution" nor say that the media is "celebrating" it. The police reacted to what looked to be someone trying to forcibly gain access into a restricted/controlled area. We don't know what/if any words were exchanged between the police/the woman, we don't know if she threatened them, claimed to have a weapon, or even outright ignored them. We don't know if the police threatened her, overreacted, or panicked. The woman being unarmed doesn't excuse that she tried to force her way past several barriers or sped away from the police

The media isn't "celebrating" it, they're all rushing to get what they see as the story out first. This isn't unique to this event, it happens with every major incident. Every new detail will be blasted on every station until a new media frenzy comes up.

If you're going to post something in current events, please, for pineapple's sake, don't make the opening post so loaded and biased that it shuts out any real discussion. Words mean things, and poorly chosen words distort and twist events just as badly as what the media does. [/COLOR]

I realize that the terms "public execution" and "celebration" are not appropriately used for this particular event, but I think you're partly focusing on the wrong issue here. Though I agree that there are far too many details that are not known (at the moment), I don't think we should be focusing on the specific words used to describe the same event. What I find more important is examining the implications of said event. For one, it serves as a distraction to the real news that is important (which isn't covered by mainstream at all, or it's later introduced as "breaking" news several months after it had already been announced by alternative). America is gradually becoming more of a police state, and this incident serves to reinforce that concept.

When someone is using a vehicle as a weapon in the capital city, in an area that is off limits and heavily guarded, yes, you're going to shoot. That's the whole point of having an armed guard. It's a vehicle - if they had hesitated, it would be too late to act when they did know everything. Go ahead and be sickened, but I'm damned sure going to prefer an armed guard that does their job rather than simply watch the car go by and do nothing. When you're talking about potential harm to senior policy makers, high ranking military and government officials, you do not have the luxury of asking questions first.

This is precisely what disgusts me. Those police officers killed a DENTAL HYGIENIST, a SINGLE mother with a young child in her backseat, unarmed. In spite of the potential dangers toward other civilians and government officials, don't you think they went too far?
Other news articles attribute Carey's actions to a "history of mental illness", but it's far too coincidental that it is used as the same rationale behind every "shooting" that takes place in this country (whether it's instigated by the victim, by the police, or by a third party funded by the government).
And it certainly doesn't help that this capitol shooting can be interpreted as another false flag, seeing how there was a drill (Capital Shield 14) taking place on the same day. This mirrors the Boston Marathon bombing incident several months ago.

As it turns out, false flag attacks like 9/11 and the Boston Bombing are a common tactic that corrupt government's use to stage an event, blame the appropriate patsies, and ultimately foment war or some other monumental social change. With 9/11, George W. Bush was able to implement the Patriot Act, for instance, which brought about the creation of the very same DHS responsible for funding the Boston Bombing false flag attack.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040898_boston...rills.html

But in any case, I'm sorry for posting such a controversial article, I made a poor judgment.

I think that by "ruled by fear" he means "has enemies", not "the people fear the government". Thus, the need for armed guards against the very real possibility that someone might want to do exactly what this woman did - but with a ton of explosives in the car. He claims his country's government does not make enemies, and therefore needs not fear being attacked in such a manner.

The implication, of course, is that making enemies - especially of the violent kind - necessarily means you're doing something wrong.

Most Americans are oblivious to what's actually happening, and they don't realize that they've been brainwashed. The Obama Administration is practically a mafia out to destroy prosperity. Their religion is a social-Darwinist, Malthusian neo-eugenics system under a planetary of controlled markets and mercantilism. America is run by foreign interests that operate a neo-feudalistic serfdom on its people.
This isn't even unique to America, it's a worldwide technocracy. There's a very good reason for people to fear the government. Unless something is done about it.