4 minutes ago, DezLez said:

Watch what?

The utter train wreck the US of A has become.

A father of 2 young girls was assassinated, and all you fine folks turn the tragedy into a classless political  argument. Remember your own bad behavior next time you feel like complaining about Indians.

 

May Charlie rest in peace.

Where was this shooter on July 13 2024?

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Stop talking nonsense. It was a leftist.

 

Nothing else make sense. This was an intolerant leftist filled with hate who could not stomach an opposing point of view. An enemy of democracy.

 

May he get a swift death penalty.

So you are now a detective jury and judge without any evidence deciding on the identity and guilt of an unidentified criminal! 

16 minutes ago, DezLez said:

Please back up that B.S. statement by including a breakdown by religions,  countries etc!

Time to grow up pal.

https://www.pewresearch.org/

 

10 minutes ago, DezLez said:

What has Rape crimes got to do with gun crime deaths?

In countries where women carry guns, gun deaths, or the threat of gun deaths may reduce rape crimes.

5 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

The utter train wreck the US of A has become.

The left has made a mess of things.  

5 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

The utter train wreck the US of A has become.

+1

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Stop talking nonsense. It was a leftist.

 

Nothing else make sense. This was an intolerant leftist filled with hate who could not stomach an opposing point of view. An enemy of democracy.

 

May he get a swift death penalty.

Given Kirk's support of Israel in Gaza, how do you know the shooter was not a Palestinian or Iranian? How do you know it was not someone seeking notoriety?

 

I suggest 400 mg ibuprofen. It will help with the bruises you get, from jumping to conclusions.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I suggest 400 mg ibuprofen. It will help with the bruises you get, from jumping to conclusions.

Ibuprofen, a type of NSAID, can increase the tendency to bruise because it interferes with blood clotting. While it can help relieve bruise-related pain and swelling, its blood-thinning properties may also cause or worsen bruising and bleeding. Consult a doctor or pharmacist before using ibuprofen for bruises, especially if you are on other blood thinners or have a history of excessive bruising. 

14 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The rhetoritic of hate that spews from the progressive left and echoed by many on here lead to things like this.

“I think it is worth to have the cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second Amendment to protect our other Second Amendment rights”. - PBS Newshour video of Charlie Kirk speaking. From his mouth the God’s ear?

15 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Fact; Donald J. Trump is a convicted criminal.

Doesn't count, it was Bidens fault, and nobody else he got convicted. Everyone understands the judges was forced to convict him, 

7 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Time to grow up pal.

https://www.pewresearch.org/

 

Your link says; Most Americans Don’t Believe God Played a Role in Recent Presidential Election Outcomes!  It makes no mention of left/right etc.

You were responding to the following statement;

 In general the right believes in GOD.   The does left does not.   Thus, the left has replaced religion with politics

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Given Kirk's support of Israel in Gaza, how do you know the shooter was not a Palestinian or Iranian? How do you know it was not someone seeking notoriety?

 

 

It's very simple, Charlie Kirk was not a total supporter of Israel, the way he is made out to be by Netanyahu and other Israelis. His position on Israel was complex. While his faith impelled him to support Israel  at times, he was also critical of pro-Israelis who tried to shut down Palestinian voices on campus. Democracy was more important to him, freedom of speech.

 

He even talked of the danger of Jews controlling university campuses and Hollywood, which brought him accusations of anti-semitism:

 

“Jews control … the colleges, the nonprofits, the movies, Hollywood, all of it”

In October 2023, Kirk alleged that Jews dominated universities, nonprofits and Hollywood alike, a sweeping claim

 

https://trt.global/world/article/c915eadce012

 

In short, his view on Jews and Israel was complex and not one-sided. If any Islamist fanatic would have chosen a victm, he would have chosen someone else entirely, there are far more obvious choices for an Islamist than Kirk.

 

Nor would an Iranian target Kirk, who had spoken out for freedom of speech on the Palestinian issue. It just doesn't make sense.

 

The only people who truly hated Charlie Kirk were the far left. You can see it even now as, they gleefully celebrate his death. Even on this thread you can see it. He was hated, but only by leftist extremists, not Islamists or Jews.

32 minutes ago, xylophone said:

That's ok because I am not a "leftie" and never have been and I do a great deal of research, and you being a MAGA Goober certainly didn't want to see these quotes of his. LOL!!! Eat your heart out!!!

 

And he would have liked this........

 

 

I do not think I have seen these claims before, and if true, I withdraw my earlier statements where I found his rethoric decent, which I obviously was wrong about. 

4 hours ago, BLMFem said:

This is the way a grown-up speaks

This is the way a pandering politician with the morals of a snake conceals her glee at another "Maga" being killed. Thats what your lot does. Kill all who wont agree with the scientific march to Socialism.

 

 

4 hours ago, JackGats said:

Maybe that's what comes out of always calling right-wing politicians "Hitler" and "nazis". Some mentally ill individuals believe those words and go on to commit murder.

Especially when its the National Socialists doing the name calling. 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, a military sniper would have been trained to hit the chest. Military snipers don't target the head or neck. This guy was a rank amateur. He was probably aiming for the head, like any amateur would, and missed and hit the neck by sheer fluke.

How does our resident (declared) expert on everything know this for a fact?

21 minutes ago, DezLez said:

The AN rules that you must back your so called facts with verifiable links.

I will treat your post as B/S. until you PROVE it otherwise!

LIke all of us who oppose the murderous ideology you support treat your posts.

5 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

This is the way a pandering politician with the morals of a snake conceals her glee at another "Maga" being killed. Thats what your lot does. Kill all who wont agree with the scientific march to Socialism.

 

 

I could actually hear your pearls explode all the way from Siem Reap!

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Kash Patel a lawyer with no experience leading a law enforcement agency and appointed because of loyalty to Trump. His incompetence is coming back to roost. Piled on that inexperience, budgetary reduction and staff resignation or fired. Inexperience staffs are now handling criminal cases. The clown show continue. 

Please show us arrests stats on Federal Charges of violent criminals that support that blatant lie.

 

Please show us which staff are inexperienced to support that insane lie

 

 

6 minutes ago, DezLez said:

How does our resident (declared) expert on everything know this for a fact?

Google it pal

 

https://taskforcereaper.weebly.com/

6 minutes ago, DezLez said:

How does our resident (declared) expert on everything know this for a fact?

Call of Duty.

25 minutes ago, DezLez said:

+1

+2

8 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

I could actually hear your pearls explode all the way from Siem Reap!

Charlotte NC, where I cant take the Light Rail because of the violent homesss that result from the deranged policies you support

The left cannot take a person who debates with them.

 

Their argument falls apart.

 

Their solution is to murder them and then blame the victim. 

 

Evil. 

13 minutes ago, DezLez said:

How does our resident (declared) expert on everything know this for a fact?

 

You will happy to know that the most experienced sniper in the US has confirmed my analysis in every detail:

 

One of America's greatest-ever snipers has revealed how he believes Charlie Kirk's assassin pulled off the brutal killing.

Sergeant Nicholas Ranstad broke down the shooting in minute detail based on his raft of experience around high-powered weapons and long-distance shots.

 

Ranstad, whose 6,778ft kill in Afghanistan set a record for the longest by an American in Afghanistan at the time, spoke to the Daily Mail about the shooting.

He said the amphitheater-like site was a 'fish bowl' for any shooter, pointing out how much easier it is to hit a target when shooting down from a roof.

 

'That's a buffet for someone who wanted to kill someone. It looked like a fishbowl, like an amphitheater, and high ground is money for shooters. Shooting down is easy.'

He continued: 'When you have events like that you look at the security, if you push 250, 300 yards, it's an easy shot.

 

'They're probably just an internet shooter, not a sniper or trained soldier.'

 

But Ranstad suggested the shooter may have made a small error during his attack, which makes him think he was not highly trained.  

 

He said the reason Kirk was hit in the neck, rather than the head or chest as a trained soldier would aim for, was down to his failure to control external factors.

 

Ranstad said: 'He was probably aiming for the head but didn't take into consideration the wind and the bullet pulled a bit.

 

'He didn't take into consideration the drop or angle by the looks.'

 

He continued: 'Him getting shot in the neck means I think he went for the head, but his adrenaline would have been going crazy, probably got a trigger pull.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15086385/Sniper-Charlie-Kirks-assassin-revealed.html

 

So there you have it, not an experienced military man, a mere amateur who aimed for the head and by mistake hit the neck. Just as my own analysis said upthread a while ago.

 

Amazing what a deductive mind can achieve, isn't it? One of the best snipers in the world has vindicated my analysis, so I am sure you are as pleased as I am.

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The left cannot take a person who debates with them.

 

Their argument falls apart.

 

Their solution is to murder them and then blame the victim. 

 

Evil. 

This is just next level fake outrage. Well done, Jonny, you've reached the boss level!🤣

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You will happy to know that the most experienced sniper in the US has confirmed my analysis in every detail:

 

One of America's greatest-ever snipers has revealed how he believes Charlie Kirk's assassin pulled off the brutal killing.

Sergeant Nicholas Ranstad broke down the shooting in minute detail based on his raft of experience around high-powered weapons and long-distance shots.

 

Ranstad, whose 6,778ft kill in Afghanistan set a record for the longest by an American in Afghanistan at the time, spoke to the Daily Mail about the shooting.

He said the amphitheater-like site was a 'fish bowl' for any shooter, pointing out how much easier it is to hit a target when shooting down from a roof.

 

'That's a buffet for someone who wanted to kill someone. It looked like a fishbowl, like an amphitheater, and high ground is money for shooters. Shooting down is easy.'

He continued: 'When you have events like that you look at the security, if you push 250, 300 yards, it's an easy shot.

 

'They're probably just an internet shooter, not a sniper or trained soldier.'

 

But Ranstad suggested the shooter may have made a small error during his attack, which makes him think he was not highly trained.  

 

He said the reason Kirk was hit in the neck, rather than the head or chest as a trained soldier would aim for, was down to his failure to control external factors.

 

Ranstad said: 'He was probably aiming for the head but didn't take into consideration the wind and the bullet pulled a bit.

 

'He didn't take into consideration the drop or angle by the looks.'

 

He continued: 'Him getting shot in the neck means I think he went for the head, but his adrenaline would have been going crazy, probably got a trigger pull.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15086385/Sniper-Charlie-Kirks-assassin-revealed.html

 

So there you have it, not an experienced military man, a mere amateur who aimed for the head and by mistake hit the neck. Just as my own analysis said upthread a while ago.

 

Amazing what a deductive mind can achieve, isn't it? One of the best snipers in the world has vindicated my analysis, so I am sure you are as pleased as I am.

Made your day that -  those crocodile tears lasted quicker than a summer shower in the Sahara on fast forward. 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You will happy to know that the most experienced sniper in the US has confirmed my analysis in every detail:

 

One of America's greatest-ever snipers has revealed how he believes Charlie Kirk's assassin pulled off the brutal killing.

Sergeant Nicholas Ranstad broke down the shooting in minute detail based on his raft of experience around high-powered weapons and long-distance shots.

 

Ranstad, whose 6,778ft kill in Afghanistan set a record for the longest by an American in Afghanistan at the time, spoke to the Daily Mail about the shooting.

He said the amphitheater-like site was a 'fish bowl' for any shooter, pointing out how much easier it is to hit a target when shooting down from a roof.

 

'That's a buffet for someone who wanted to kill someone. It looked like a fishbowl, like an amphitheater, and high ground is money for shooters. Shooting down is easy.'

He continued: 'When you have events like that you look at the security, if you push 250, 300 yards, it's an easy shot.

 

'They're probably just an internet shooter, not a sniper or trained soldier.'

 

But Ranstad suggested the shooter may have made a small error during his attack, which makes him think he was not highly trained.  

 

He said the reason Kirk was hit in the neck, rather than the head or chest as a trained soldier would aim for, was down to his failure to control external factors.

 

Ranstad said: 'He was probably aiming for the head but didn't take into consideration the wind and the bullet pulled a bit.

 

'He didn't take into consideration the drop or angle by the looks.'

 

He continued: 'Him getting shot in the neck means I think he went for the head, but his adrenaline would have been going crazy, probably got a trigger pull.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15086385/Sniper-Charlie-Kirks-assassin-revealed.html

 

So there you have it, not an experienced military man, a mere amateur who aimed for the head and by mistake hit the neck. Just as my own analysis said upthread a while ago.

 

Amazing what a deductive mind can achieve, isn't it? One of the best snipers in the world has vindicated my analysis, so I am sure you are as pleased as I am.

I'm not pleased but I am astounded, and not for the reasons you think.