Author Topic: If "lone" assasins could kill Presidents then why....? (Read 3279 times)

quadzilla456 · « **on:** March 22, 2010, 07:42:13 PM »

Serious question. If "lone" assasins had the capability to kill a president as the media would suggest happened in the case of Kennedy and Lincoln then why are we not seeing a lot more corrupt dead politicians?? You would think that with the way the current day politicians have fucked up there would be a lot more of this going on??!

The answer of course is that there were no "lone" assasins. They were enabled by someone / some organization (bankers?) and then discarded and evidence destroyed by killing off the killer. How convenient that the killers killer also dies.

Think about it. If it was THAT easy to take out a powerful politician you would see a lot more of it. Some of these fuckers are hated by millions.

UGMT · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2010, 07:48:59 PM »

cool story bro.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2010, 07:53:04 PM »

Quote from: quadzilla456 on March 22, 2010, 07:42:13 PM

Serious question. If "lone" assasins had the capability to kill a president as the media would suggest happened in the case of Kennedy and Lincoln then why are we not seeing a lot more corrupt dead politicians?? You would think that with the way the current day politicians have fucked up there would be a lot more of this going on??!

The answer of course is that there were no "lone" assasins. They were enabled by someone / some organization (bankers?) and then discarded and evidence destroyed by killing off the killer. How convenient that the killers killer also dies.

Think about it. If it was THAT easy to take out a powerful politician you would see a lot more of it. Some of these fuckers are hated by millions.

I once ran into chuck Schumer once in NYC and wanted to push him into traffic. Does that count?

SAMSON123 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2010, 08:20:35 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 22, 2010, 07:53:04 PM

I once ran into chuck Schumer once in NYC and wanted to push him into traffic. Does that count?

Not until you actually PUSH HIM INTO TRAFFIC...lol

SAMSON123 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2010, 08:24:33 AM »

Quote from: quadzilla456 on March 22, 2010, 07:42:13 PM

Serious question. If "lone" assasins had the capability to kill a president as the media would suggest happened in the case of Kennedy and Lincoln then why are we not seeing a lot more corrupt dead politicians?? You would think that with the way the current day politicians have fucked up there would be a lot more of this going on??!

The answer of course is that there were no "lone" assasins. They were enabled by someone / some organization (bankers?) and then discarded and evidence destroyed by killing off the killer. How convenient that the killers killer also dies.

Think about it. If it was THAT easy to take out a powerful politician you would see a lot more of it. Some of these fuckers are hated by millions.

This little FACT you bring up is the foundation for people to come to realize that these government produced CT about lone gunmen, or psychotic person(s) or hate groups committing these acts is impossible. It takes an army of people, personnel, and agencies to commit and assassination and make it so that the assassin is not caught , no evidence produced and/or to put a patsy up as the fall person.

Fury · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2010, 08:51:01 AM »

Quote from: quadzilla456 on March 22, 2010, 07:42:13 PM

Serious question. If "lone" assasins had the capability to kill a president as the media would suggest happened in the case of Kennedy and Lincoln then why are we not seeing a lot more corrupt dead politicians?? You would think that with the way the current day politicians have fucked up there would be a lot more of this going on??!

The answer of course is that there were no "lone" assasins. They were enabled by someone / some organization (bankers?) and then discarded and evidence destroyed by killing off the killer. How convenient that the killers killer also dies.

Think about it. If it was THAT easy to take out a powerful politician you would see a lot more of it. Some of these fuckers are hated by millions.

So your entire theory, which is devoid of anything beyond opinion, is built around assassinations that occurred 50+ years ago. Cool story. I'm sold.

brooklynbruiser · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2010, 12:04:27 PM »

quadzilla456 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2010, 02:27:37 PM »

Quote from: BerzerkFury on March 23, 2010, 08:51:01 AM

So your entire theory, which is devoid of anything beyond opinion, is built around assassinations that occurred 50+ years ago. Cool story. I'm sold.

The point of the theory is to examine how difficult it is to accomplish high profile assasinations and thereby bring into question the argument that "lone gunmen" perpetraded the crimes. If it was easy then why is it not happening more often? How much security did JFK have 50 years ago in Dallas compared to Barnie Frank today? I think it is safe to assume there are quite a few people willing to go as far as "Harvey Oswald" or "John Booth" yet they don't. If anything there are a lot more crazy people now in USA than then - just look at all the public shootings we've had. Yet there are almost no REAL violence towards politicians?? I am not talking about someone throwing an egg or spitting on a politician.

If you can bring up a rational argument that explains this phenomena then please do.

And if it is my "opinion" and not a fact (non violence against politicians) then please show me the evidence that I am mistaken.

24KT · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2010, 04:40:01 PM »

Quote from: quadzilla456 on March 23, 2010, 02:27:37 PM

The point of the theory is to examine how difficult it is to accomplish high profile assasinations and thereby bring into question the argument that "lone gunmen" perpetraded the crimes. If it was easy then why is it not happening more often? How much security did JFK have 50 years ago in Dallas compared to Barnie Frank today? I think it is safe to assume there are quite a few people willing to go as far as "Harvey Oswald" or "John Booth" yet they don't. If anything there are a lot more crazy people now in USA than then - just look at all the public shootings we've had. Yet there are almost no REAL violence towards politicians?? I am not talking about someone throwing an egg or spitting on a politician.

If you can bring up a rational argument that explains this phenomena then please do.

And if it is my "opinion" and not a fact (non violence against politicians) then please show me the evidence that I am mistaken.

Because in America, they no longer shoot presidents with guns anymore. They just call on the National Enquirer to shoot them with cameras, and kill any shot of them ever becoming President. It's far more profitable, a whole lot less bloodier, and the public just eats it up.

Oh the irony!

muscleforlife · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2010, 07:54:22 PM »

You are forgetting about Hinckley Jr. attempt on Reagan.

History shows it was touch and go for the gipper.

Sandra

MRDUMPLING · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2010, 07:31:43 AM »

It seems to me that if someone is really crazy enough to shoot somebody else out of rage or any other mental disorder they want easy, unarmed targets that will be at a target rich enviroment such as a school, college, mall, etc. Shooting a politician still isn't easy, and often with security these days takes too much planning, and the shot that some might have to take would take a reasonable amount of skill. Most crazies just want to get it over with and not go through all of the preparation and planning.

It's pretty apparent from past threads that many on hear think that shooting efficiently is just pointing and pulling the trigger...not so. Just my .02.

quadzilla456 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2010, 03:35:01 PM »

Quote from: MRDUMPLING on March 24, 2010, 07:31:43 AM

It seems to me that if someone is really crazy enough to shoot somebody else out of rage or any other mental disorder they want easy, unarmed targets that will be at a target rich enviroment such as a school, college, mall, etc. Shooting a politician still isn't easy, and often with security these days takes too much planning, and the shot that some might have to take would take a reasonable amount of skill. Most crazies just want to get it over with and not go through all of the preparation and planning.

It's pretty apparent from past threads that many on hear think that shooting efficiently is just pointing and pulling the trigger...not so. Just my .02.

Good argument. However look at all the planning the "DC Snipers" went through. Some crazies do take the time.

SAMSON123 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2010, 04:18:56 PM »

Quote from: muscleforlife on March 23, 2010, 07:54:22 PM

You are forgetting about Hinckley Jr. attempt on Reagan.

History shows it was touch and go for the gipper.

Sandra

Hinckley was the assassin hired by the Bushes to take out Reagan so that Bush Sr could have come to the presidency earlier than he wanted to. Plan failed...forgot to converse with GOD first to see if it was possible.

Like it was already said there are a lot more reasons and people to kill politicians today than ever, so why are they not being taken out on a regular basis? Given the crimes against humanity, against their respective nations? against their constitutions etc etc there certainly is enough groundwork prepared for such an opportunity to occur.

quadzilla456 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2010, 04:55:21 PM »

Quote from: jaguarenterprises on March 23, 2010, 04:40:01 PM

Because in America, they no longer shoot presidents with guns anymore. They just call on the National Enquirer to shoot them with cameras, and kill any shot of them ever becoming President. It's far more profitable, a whole lot less bloodier, and the public just eats it up.

Oh the irony!

Who's the "they" you are referring to? Sounds like you agree with the thread's assertion.

ShipSekki · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2010, 05:27:54 PM »

JFK was not killed by a lone assassin. There was a huge real conspiracy behind his death. All the facts point to it.

quadzilla456 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2010, 05:57:33 PM »

Quote from: ShipSekki on March 24, 2010, 05:27:54 PM

JFK was not killed by a lone assassin. There was a huge real conspiracy behind his death. All the facts point to it.

Thank you!

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #16 on:** March 24, 2010, 07:03:07 PM »

Quote from: quadzilla456 on March 24, 2010, 05:57:33 PM

Thank you!

LHO did say he was the patsy.

MRDUMPLING · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2010, 09:06:09 AM »

Quote from: quadzilla456 on March 24, 2010, 03:35:01 PM

Good argument. However look at all the planning the "DC Snipers" went through. Some crazies do take the time.

True...but again, they were shooting at unarmed targets. They didn't plan to take out a politician. Too high of a risk for most crazies.

JFK was a straight up conspiracy. Did anyone watch the documentary about the next 48 hours after the shot and how bad they treated the VP and kept him in the dark on purpose? Crazy stuff.

quadzilla456 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2010, 02:42:13 PM »

Quote from: MRDUMPLING on March 25, 2010, 09:06:09 AM

True...but again, they were shooting at unarmed targets. They didn't plan to take out a politician. Too high of a risk for most crazies.

JFK was a straight up conspiracy. Did anyone watch the documentary about the next 48 hours after the shot and how bad they treated the VP and kept him in the dark on purpose? Crazy stuff.

Wait a second lol! You are actually backing up what I am saying. It takes so much planning that crazies can't accomplish the task. Which goes back to what I was saying in the beginning that "higher powers" had to be involved. Man I got mixed up there for a moment trying to convince you that crazies can actually do it!

MRDUMPLING · « **Reply #19 on:** March 26, 2010, 07:35:21 AM »

Quote from: quadzilla456 on March 25, 2010, 02:42:13 PM

Wait a second lol! You are actually backing up what I am saying. It takes so much planning that crazies can't accomplish the task. Which goes back to what I was saying in the beginning that "higher powers" had to be involved. Man I got mixed up there for a moment trying to convince you that crazies can actually do it!

Yep...I agreed with you from the beginning.