Three ICE detainees shot, 2 dead, at ICE facility in Dallas; suspected shooter committed suicide.

[Oompa Loompa]

no

You just blindly assumed that foul play was at hand because it is easier for you to believe than the shooter being another radical leftist.

 

[rambot]

You just blindly assumed that foul play was at hand because it is easier for you to believe than the shooter being another radical leftist.

No. I laughed because of the low quality effort from whoever put that there.

"Water will cause a standard sharpie to smudge or run on metal". From sharpie.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No. I laughed because of the low quality effort from whoever put that there.

"Water will cause a standard sharpie to smudge or run on metal". From sharpie.

So you say "no," but you meant to say "yes."

 

[rambot]

So you say "no," but you meant to say "yes."

news to me.

 

[rjs330]

news to me.

If you are suggesting that ICE put those bullets there in order to paint the shooter as a left winger thats a pretty big conspiracy.

We've had a LOT of attacks on ICE and ICE facilities and everyone has been left wing atracks. Suddenly you want to claim that ICE needs to fake bullets in order to say it was a left winger?

Its nonsensical.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Dallas ICE shooter was targeting agents, not detainees: Officials​

He allegedly left behind a note that said, "Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, 'is there a sniper with AP rounds on that roof?'" Patel said in a statement, the note referring to armor-piercing bullets.

"He conducted multiple searches of ballistics and the 'Charlie Kirk Shot Video'" on Tuesday and Wednesday, Patel said.

Investigators have not found that Jahn was a member of any specific group, Larson said. No government agency was mentioned in his notes other than ICE, but he did express a "hatred for the federal government," Larson said.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Dallas ICE shooter was targeting agents, not detainees: Officials​

He allegedly left behind a note that said, "Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, 'is there a sniper with AP rounds on that roof?'" Patel said in a statement, the note referring to armor-piercing bullets.

"He conducted multiple searches of ballistics and the 'Charlie Kirk Shot Video'" on Tuesday and Wednesday, Patel said.

Investigators have not found that Jahn was a member of any specific group, Larson said. No government agency was mentioned in his notes other than ICE, but he did express a "hatred for the federal government," Larson said.

The fact that they were shot?

Told you so.

 

[Pommer]

Dallas ICE shooter was targeting agents, not detainees: Officials​

He allegedly left behind a note that said, "Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, 'is there a sniper with AP rounds on that roof?'" Patel said in a statement, the note referring to armor-piercing bullets.

"He conducted multiple searches of ballistics and the 'Charlie Kirk Shot Video'" on Tuesday and Wednesday, Patel said.

Investigators have not found that Jahn was a member of any specific group, Larson said. No government agency was mentioned in his notes other than ICE, but he did express a "hatred for the federal government," Larson said.

Wow they got (and released) a lot of info on this guy.
Quickly. Somehow.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Wow they got (and released) a lot of info on this guy.
Quickly. Somehow.

Yep. Some people say the truth is stranger than fiction. But I find Occam's Razor to be the most accurate to political violence.

 

[Bradskii]

He was radical left!
Oh no he wasn't!
Oh yes he was!

Repeat ad nauseum.

What is this? A bloody tennis match? The side with the most points gets to feel smug?

Good grief...

 

[Aldebaran]

Yep. Some people say the truth is stranger than fiction. But I find Occam's Razor to be the most accurate to political violence.

Seems like the ones committing the violence do too--they are all using bolt action rifles now. Have you noticed that? Looks like those will have to be on the ban list instead of AR15s.

 

[BPPLEE]

Seems like the ones committing the violence do too--they are all using bolt action rifles now. Have you noticed that? Looks like those will have to be on the ban list instead of AR15s.

Both are just rifles

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He was radical left!
Oh no he wasn't!
Oh yes he was!

Repeat ad nauseum.

What is this? A bloody tennis match? The side with the most points gets to feel smug?

Good grief...

While it is emblematic of how far devolved US politics has gotten...

It only became "a contest" because one faction basically has gone out of their way to expand and water down definitions to be able to say "See the other guys are more extremist" for the past decade.

...and have started setting a higher bar for proof of which "side" a person is on to boot when the targets have been their political opponents.

When a nutjob went and shot at the CDC, the target of the shooter's ire plus a few social media posts were all people needed to be confident in accurately identifying "which side he's on...and whose rhetoric fueled the flames"

A defense of "well, for all we know, this guy could be a super left-wing, and perhaps he just held this one right-wing view on covid vaccines, but apart from that, he could've been uber progressive" would've been laughed out of the room and quickly dismissed.


Yet when some of the recent incidents are going in the other direction, all of the sudden there's a much higher bar for such designations, and people on the left are willing to entertain the possibility "ad hoc" extreme positions going in the other direction.


"For all we know, this guy could've been a right winger who just held this one specific position that was contrary to the rest of the right-wing positions" Yeah...sure

 

[Oompa Loompa]

He was radical left!
Oh no he wasn't!
Oh yes he was!

Repeat ad nauseum.

What is this? A bloody tennis match? The side with the most points gets to feel smug?

Good grief...

Duck season!

 

[Bradskii]

While it is emblematic of how far devolved US politics has gotten...

Great. Agree it's a problem. And then say:

It's the left that is the problem!
Oh no it isn't!
Oh yes it is!

Repeat ad nauseum. Total the score. Winner goes home feeling smug.

Thank you ball boys, thank you linesmen.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Great. Agree it's a problem. And then say:

It's the left that is the problem!
Oh no it isn't!
Oh yes it is!

Repeat ad nauseum. Total the score. Winner goes home feeling smug.

Thank you ball boys, thank you linesmen.

But simply acknowledging the current state of affairs without discussing what led to it isn't helpful.

People on the left suggesting "we need to rise above that shallow standard, and think more critically and allow for nuance" only after it's some of their peeps in the hot seat rings hollow.


In more plain terms:
If "they attacked someone considered to be Left, then we can just immediately attribute the attack to right-wing rhetoric" was the rule of thumb for 10 years, then revoking that standard when circumstances change just seems like a disingenuous defense mechanism.

 

[Bradskii]

But simply acknowledging the current state of affairs without discussing what led to it isn't helpful.

It shouldn't be that difficult for you to ascertain the problem. Just look at the posts in this forum. Including yours. It's a microcosm of the nation's political 'discourse'. It's nothing but Us v Them.

 

[Aldebaran]

Both are just rifles

Yep! It's just strange that it takes these kinds of people to demonstrate that.

 

[rjs330]

It shouldn't be that difficult for you to ascertain the problem. Just look at the posts in this forum. Including yours. It's a microcosm of the nation's political 'discourse'. It's nothing but Us v Them.

Said by a guy who's clearly an us vs them guy. Ive heard the rhetoric from you and the words said about us right wingers.

I have one question and it is, are you personally going to stop?

And are you going to going to tell anyone on your side to stop with the rhetoric tossed around on your side.

Because we on the right are not going to be able to do that. Those on the left have to police their own.

 

[childeye 2]

But simply acknowledging the current state of affairs without discussing what led to it isn't helpful.

People on the left suggesting "we need to rise above that shallow standard, and think more critically and allow for nuance" only after it's some of their peeps in the hot seat rings hollow.


In more plain terms:
If "they attacked someone considered to be Left, then we can just immediately attribute the attack to right-wing rhetoric" was the rule of thumb for 10 years, then revoking that standard when circumstances change just seems like a disingenuous defense mechanism.

My daddy can beat up your daddy is not a substantive policy worthy of being framed in a left/right dichotomy. <-- this should be common sense.