J6: An insurrection or a fedsurrection?

[User]

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

This is a meeting of the minds, Abuser, not a court room.

The standards of basic discussion are the same. If you are going to assert something here as fact, you must back it up. 

You can't. 

So I don't have to take anything you say seriously as anything more than a baseless assertion. Neither does anyone else. 

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I gave you the truth. It's the only thing available when globalist a$$holes control the mainstream narrative and the "evidence".  

See, here is the problem. You are claiming it is truth, but you have nothing to back that up. 

 

[West]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

What would satisfy me is explicit written documentation or video that lays out the who (with actual names), what (exact plan with time and place) and where. No guessing or filling in of the blanks. Its possible that the FBI is not telling you every single detail  and not because they are conspiring. Law enforcement regularly does not tell the public every single detail of a case. 

The tax payers have a right to know whether or not their tax dollars are being abused and spent on spinning narratives, or circumventing applicable civil liberties through paying third party "informants" to do the dirty work of the FBI that they likely WOULD NOT be able to do based on applicable legislation otherwise

Edited December 13, 2024 by West

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, West said:

The tax payers have a right to know whether or not their tax dollars are being abused and spent on spinning narratives, or circumventing applicable civil liberties through paying third party "informants" to do the dirty work of the FBI that they likely WOULD NOT be able to do based on applicable legislation otherwise

So do you have the exact details to back up your assertions.. who, what, when, where? As well as proof of the conversations with no summarizing or assumptions?

[User]

3 minutes ago, West said:

I've already told you what I think. 

I am not asking what you think. 

5 minutes ago, West said:

What's retarded is YOU getting hung up on whether or not somebody is using the lingo that you want them to use.

It is not about using the lingo I want you to use or not in regards to your using the term "fedsurrection". I am wanting to know if you actually believe the terms you used. 

 

[West]

18 minutes ago, User said:

I am not asking what you think. 

It is not about using the lingo I want you to use or not in regards to your using the term "fedsurrection". I am wanting to know if you actually believe the terms you used. 

 

Yeah it is. You got hung up on lingo for about two pages 

19 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So do you have the exact details to back up your assertions.. who, what, when, where? As well as proof of the conversations with no summarizing or assumptions?

The report specifies that paid FBI informants were entering the Capitol without authorization. 

Tell me why my conclusion is wrong for the sake of moving the conversation forward.

[User]

Just now, West said:

Yeah it is. You got hung up on lingo for about two pages 

In regards to your absurd use of "agent" sure. 

Now, you just keep running from answering a simple question on "fedsurrection" 

So, don't complain when I rightly point out that you are using this terminology and that your argument here are garbage. 

There was no "fedsurrection"

 

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, West said:

Yeah it is. You got hung up on lingo for about two pages 

The report specifies that paid FBI informants were entering the Capitol without authorization. 

Tell me why my conclusion is wrong for the sake of moving the conversation forward.

Unlike you, I need better and more complete information to draw a reasoned conclusion. You acknowledge that there are gaps in the information set and so fill in the blanks. 

[West]

19 minutes ago, User said:

In regards to your absurd use of "agent" sure. 

Now, you just keep running from answering a simple question on "fedsurrection" 

So, don't complain when I rightly point out that you are using this terminology and that your argument here are garbage. 

There was no "fedsurrection"

 

Well you are welcome to offer your input into the discussion if you choose but it's a little silly to be attacking the OP because you don't like the question, no? 

Welcome to forums where people will disagree with you

[West]

18 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Unlike you, I need better and more complete information to draw a reasoned conclusion. You acknowledge that there are gaps in the information set and so fill in the blanks. 

Sure. Based on the information at hand, 

1. The FBI is paying informants

2. The informants are apparently breaking federal law. 

3. This raises questions about the ethics of tax payers dollars going toward paying for such a thing

4. To me, it seems like the feds are in some way, whether directly or indirectly, contributing to this particular event

5. The extent to which that is, their coordination, etc still requires clarification, but

6. I would say that based on the information presented there is questionable methods and ethics that would support those who are raising the questions and alarms of the "fedsurrection" and to pass it off as a "conspiracy theory" is bogus. 

Just my two cents. 

[Deluge]

32 minutes ago, User said:

You are claiming it is truth, but you have nothing to back that up. 

Why did Harris lose the election? 

Wrong.

It's because the country got sick of the bullshit. When I say bullshit, I'm talking about election interference, J6 entrapment, assassination attempts, unleashing the DoJ and FBI on political opponents, mainstream media bias, the entire f*cking thing has been hijacked by woke cultists - evidence or no evidence it all stunk, and America got sick of it. 

Ray Epps was an FBI informant. He says that the FBI did not tell him to enter the building, but he did anyways. He incited protestors, and many believe that directive came from the FBI. I believe that too. 

The evidence YOU want has either been destroyed or never existed, but it never got rid of the suspicion. 

Now, you want to leave your head up the left's ass, and that's fine with me, but I'm going to stick with what makes sense.  

 

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, West said:

Sure. Based on the information at hand, 

1. The FBI is paying informants

2. The informants are apparently breaking federal law. 

3. This raises questions about the ethics of tax payers dollars going toward paying for such a thing

4. To me, it seems like the feds are in some way, whether directly or indirectly, contributing to this particular event

5. The extent to which that is, their coordination, etc still requires clarification, but

6. I would say that based on the information presented there is questionable methods and ethics that would support those who are raising the questions and alarms of the "fedsurrection" and to pass it off as a "conspiracy theory" is bogus. 

Just my two cents. 

Your entire post admits to there being unknowns or gaps. I am not the type that makes accusations when there are unknowns or gaps

 

[Deluge]

32 minutes ago, User said:

In regards to your absurd use of "agent" sure. 

Now, you just keep running from answering a simple question on "fedsurrection" 

So, don't complain when I rightly point out that you are using this terminology and that your argument here are garbage. 

There was no "fedsurrection"

 

Sure there was. The Feds and their informants turned a normal protest into the "fedsurrection". 

How do I know that? Because normal conservative Americans don't pull shit like that. But I'll tell you who DOES pull shit like that, and that's Antifa. They have lots and lots of experience at defacing buildings and setting shit on fire. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those a$$holes also threw on some MAGA gear to get in on it.  

[User]

14 minutes ago, West said:

Well you are welcome to offer your input into the discussion if you choose but it's a little silly to be attacking the OP because you don't like the question, no? 

Welcome to forums where people will disagree with you

Do you feel attacked?

I was not attacking you. 

I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. 

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Your entire post admits to there being unknowns or gaps. I am not the type that makes accusations when there are unknowns or gaps

 

That's a ridiculous statement. Claiming that you need proof Beyond any reasonable doubt is a cop out.

As the saying goes, there are two types of people in this world:  1)  those who can extrapolate from incomplete datasets

 

There are lower levels of proof that reasonable people and even the courts except. There is balance of the probabilities, where you determine whether the evidence provided leans one way or another. There is clear and convincing which says the evidence may be incomplete but it's enough to be compelling to believe such and such.

No reasonable thinker asks for there to be no gaps ever in information before reaching a decision. Even artificial intelligence doesn't require that bar, surely human intelligence can beat that

Edited December 13, 2024 by CdnFox

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

A lot of unanswered questions and unknowns. You act as if you have 100% of the information. I know that you are not an FBI agent nor do you have any access to the conversations that were had before this. You are reading tea leaves and pretending to be an expert. 

 

CHS are, by the very definition of the word..."agents".

In the clip above, Wray is asked...again after 1 year...did you have any agents at the Jan. 6th rally and riot that ensued? He will not answer because he can't. To do so would have lit a fire he would not be able to extinguish...IMO and the opinions of millions of US citizens. Now that the report has been published, Chris is sticking his tail between his legs and running away.

 

Now...you'll have to excuse me if I find Wray to be a bald-faced liar. He is not credible what so ever and is likely now to be one of those Cash Patel goes after.

[User]

Just now, Deluge said:

Sure there was. The Feds and their informants turned a normal protest into the "fedsurrection". 

What do you base this on?

Just now, Deluge said:

How do I know that? Because normal conservative Americans don't pull shit like that.

You can call them not normal all you like, but a lot of folks on the right did in fact get caught up in this lawless mob violence and other illegality that day. 

How do I know that? Because the DOJ has spent years pouring through the video, building cases, and prosecuting some of those people. 

I follow a lawyer who fights for J6 defendants, I see their stories, who they are, and what they did that day. 

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

But I'll tell you who DOES pull shit like that, and that's Antifa. They have lots and lots of experience at defacing buildings and setting shit on fire. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those a$$holes also threw on some MAGA gear to get in on it.

So was Ashli Babbit Antifa? 

 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Don't be ridiculous. Paying someone for information doesn't come close to making ANYONE an agent of the FBI.

You do know that agents carry guns and have badges, don't you? CHS do NOT. LMAO

You should try elite sense, cause common sense has FAILED YOU.

It does if the FBI gave them instructions and direction...which they did.

You should try not making a complete a55 of yourself on a daily basis.

[User]

14 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Why did Harris lose the election? 

Wrong.

What does that question have to do with your assertion?

Harris lost because less people voted for her. 

14 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Ray Epps was an FBI informant. He says that the FBI did not tell him to enter the building, but he did anyways. He incited protestors, and many believe that directive came from the FBI. I believe that too. 

No, you have no evidence he was an FBI informant or was working for them that day. 

What you believe is garbage. What is it you have any proof for?

15 minutes ago, Deluge said:

The evidence YOU want has either been destroyed or never existed, but it never got rid of the suspicion. 

If all you have is suspicion, you don't get to assert this as fact or claim it is true. 

16 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Now, you want to leave your head up the left's ass, and that's fine with me, but I'm going to stick with what makes sense.

I will stick with facts, logic, and reason. 

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

It does if the FBI gave them instructions and direction...which they did.

What instructions and directions did the FBI give? What is your evidence?

[Deluge]

4 minutes ago, User said:

1. What do you base this on?

You can call them not normal all you like, but a lot of folks on the right did in fact get caught up in this lawless mob violence and other illegality that day. 

2. How do I know that? Because the DOJ has spent years pouring through the video, building cases, and prosecuting some of those people. 

3. I follow a lawyer who fights for J6 defendants, I see their stories, who they are, and what they did that day. 

4. So was Ashli Babbit Antifa? 

 

1. I base it on the fact that patriots don't do January 6 type shit; some had to have some outside help - FBI outside help, for instance; anti-Trump outside help. 

I'm not disputing that some of the protesters lost their heads, but what I am saying is that shit would've never happened under normal protesting conditions - they were incited. 

2. The same DoJ that has wanted Trump's head on a platter since 2015. That place needs a good washing and scrubbing out. Can't wait for that. 

3. Does he also give you access to police records and evidence and shit? 

4. Nope; looks like she was an unarmed protestor who was shot and killed by a Trump hating psychopath. 

 

 

[West]

37 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Your entire post admits to there being unknowns or gaps. I am not the type that makes accusations when there are unknowns or gaps

 

I never claimed there wasn't unknowns. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. I base it on the fact that patriots don't do January 6 type shit; some had to have some outside help - FBI outside help, for instance; anti-Trump outside help. 

I'm not disputing that some of the protesters lost their heads, but what I am saying is that shit would've never happened under normal protesting conditions - they were incited. 

So, you have nothing to back up your assertion... yet again, no surprise. 

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

2. The same DoJ that has wanted Trump's head on a platter since 2015. That place needs a good washing and scrubbing out. Can't wait for that. 

And? It doesn't change the facts that there were in fact people on the right there that day who engaged in violence and other illegal activities. 

You just admitted Ashli Babbet was one of them. 

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

3. Does he also give you access to police records and evidence and shit? 

He is quite articulate about what he is doing. Shipwreckedcrew. Look him up. 

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

4. Nope; looks like she was an unarmed protestor who was shot and killed by a Trump hating psychopath. 

She was not a "protestor" when she was illegally entering the building, refusing commands to stop, engaging in trying to breach a secured door and trying to climb through a broken window.

She was not ANTIFA. 

Your absurd attempt to play this off as if it were ANTIFA causing these issues that day is nonsense.  

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, West said:

I never claimed there wasn't unknowns. 

So why do you fill in the blanks? I know that if Robosmith was filling in the blanks.. you would point out ad nauseum. So you are guessing and then acting like its authoritative. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, User said:

What instructions and directions did the FBI give? What is your evidence?

From the OP's link...

Quote

"One FBI field office tasked a CHS to travel to DC to report on the activities of a predicated domestic terrorism subject who was separately planning to travel to DC for the January 6 Electoral Certification; a second FBI field office tasked a CHS to travel to DC to potentially report on two domestic terrorism (DT) subjects from another FBI field office who were planning to travel to DC for the events of January 6; and a third CHS, who had informed their handling agent that they intended to travel to DC on their own initiative for the events of January 6, was similarly tasked by their field office to potentially report on two DT subjects from other FBI field offices who were planning to travel to DC for the events of January 6," the report states.

 

[West]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

So why do you fill in the blanks? I know that if Robosmith was filling in the blanks.. you would point out ad nauseum. So you are guessing and then acting like its authoritative. 

This isn't true at all. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

From the OP's link...

So, nothing related to engaging in any violence, or incitement, etc... or anything around a "fedsurrection"

Got it.