FBI finds scant evidence Jan 6 attack was coordinated

[friend of]

FBI finds scant evidence Jan. 6 attack was coordinated: Reuters

 

[Sketcher]

Haters of Republicans:

 

[pescador]

FBI finds scant evidence Jan. 6 attack was coordinated: Reuters

Here is part of the article, "The wire service, which spoke with four current and former law enforcement officials, reported that investigators for the FBI noted that those involved in the far-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were intent on entering the Capitol.

However, the officials who spoke with Reuters said that no coordinated plans appeared to be established regarding what they would do once they broke in."

 

[Blade]

FBI finds scant evidence Jan. 6 attack was coordinated: Reuters

This is not even worth talking about. So many facts out there about what the FBI knowing weeks before. Just hearing a late night talk show compare those on Jan 6th to the Taliban. 2020 574 riots, burning, looting, killing 20 cops, 25 people over 1000 cops hurt some for life. Before becoming vice president in 2020 3 times said "it will keep happening and should".

Jan 6th. We always read about "broke in" which is true. But never hear about those cops standing just talking to each other by open doors. Not being attacked in any way. We hear about the body cams and all the video that oddly no one gets to see. Which would prove how evil bad those people really were! How NO COPS helped them. How an unarmed woman coming in a window shot and killed. Yeah.. they have all that video no one denies that. Just wont show it. If your on the left.. you don't care. One would think.. left right in this case would be tossed out and you want to see know the truth. You would want to know are people still being or were held for months on just charges of trespassing? Anyway

 

[stevil]

This is not even worth talking about.

Jan 6th. We always read about "broke in" which is true. But never hear about those cops standing just talking to each other by open doors. Not being attacked in any way. We hear about the body cams and all the video that oddly no one gets to see.

You would want to know are people still being or were held for months on just charges of trespassing? Anyway

 

[NxNW]

If they didn't all conspire in advance, one wonders who suddenly inspired them to try to overthrow the government and assassinate elected officials. Was there some sort of speech nearby by a prominent person who might have influenced them?

 

[Lain Iwakura]

If they didn't all conspire in advance, one wonders who suddenly inspired them to try to overthrow the government and assassinate elected officials. Was there some sort of speech nearby by a prominent person who might have influenced them?

"inspired them to try to overthrow the government and assassinate elected officials"

^they weren't inspired to such. This is so far out there that it borders on pure schizophrenia - a delusion totally absent of reality.

"Was there some sort of speech nearby by a prominent person who might have influenced them?"

^The person spoken of clearly spoke of peaceful assembly and by no legal criteria in existence in America could be said to have engaged in incitement (which would constitute any such influence.)

 

[NxNW]

"inspired them to try to overthrow the government and assassinate elected officials"

^they weren't inspired to such. This is so far out there that it borders on pure schizophrenia - a delusion totally absent of reality.

They were wearing shirts that said 'Civil War January 6.' They said they were there to overthrow the government. They said they were there to kill Pence. They said Trump sent them. It's all on video.

 

[Lain Iwakura]

They were wearing shirts that said 'Civil War January 6.' They said they were there to overthrow the government. They said they were there to kill Pence. They said Trump sent them. It's all on video.

And how do I know your alleged 'video' is an accurate representation of the situation? I could make a video with a few friends doing similarly, and we can say Biden sent us - does that mean he sent me? I guess he would be guilty by the means that I, a random stranger, said so? Imagine, the president elect influenced an 'insurrection' and now we have video evidence!

A fact is presuppositional and theory laden. A fact can be either true or false. All facts are inherently 'alternative.' How do you intend to prove that the schizophrenic 'insurrection' theory is either plausible, true, or right?

"It is precisely that there are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Neitzche

 

[NxNW]

And how do I know your alleged 'video' is an accurate representation of the situation?

Alleged? Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

A fact is presuppositional and theory laden. A fact can be either true or false.

Apparently you misunderstand the meaning of the word.

 

[Lain Iwakura]

Alleged? Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

Apparently you misunderstand the meaning of the word.

Apparently you have never read a basic epistemological text and reject first order logic.


Let's play a game. I give a quote and you tell me which logician or philosopher said it. I'll give you three for free.

"(Fact) already implies a discourse context - but we do not talk about this framework, also not with terms such as statement and true." - P.F. Strawson

"the use of the term "facts" is always a sign that things are not yet properly analyzed logically." - P. Geach

"there are no pure facts, all are theory-laden." - Ernst Mayr

"facts are ad hoc inventions, which can not refute skepticism."

"there are no facts, there are only propositions."

"there are no facts - because we have to say, any true belief agrees with all the facts."

"facts are not true statements. A fact has a causal relation - several statements are possible for a fact."

"in pure mathematics, the problem of finding facts about our use of concepts is insoluble"

""The house of Priam was made of wood": here you cannot substittue "fact that there is a house" for "house"."

""ta pragmata" cannot be translated as "facts", although it is often translated in this way. But the present context does not even contain any word for facts."

"(Facts) spread across Europe like syphilis at the end of the 19th century, especially in the field of journalism."

"Two versions are about "the same facts" in the extent to which they have some expressions in common. Each convention depends on the fact, but every fact is a convention. The distinction between convention and fact is itself conventional."

"the distinction between "fact" and "definition" has collapsed, to which Reichenbach had supported - PutnamVsDavidson: the perception of a tree depends on our conceptual scheme - it is a matter of degree, what is a fact, and what is a convention."

"are true sentences or true propositions - facts are not required, especially not in addition to propositions."

""a fact is a true statement" - no, they are not identical, because they play different roles: facts are causal statements."

""It is a fact" does not contribute anything. It is only seemingly founded in correspondence theory."

"Facts are "internal accusative" for true statements (spurious relation)."

"The concept of facts has lost its independence because facts are always impregnated in theory."

And from whence comes your idiotic 'facts.' According to Peter Geach, the logician, 'facts' are a product of the fashion journal "Strand Magazine" at the end of the 19th century. (P. Geach, Oxford 1972, P. 121.) I'm sure the likes of TeenVogue is a great place for you to form your conception interpeting phenomenon.

Perhaps, instead of assuming I don't know what the word means, you should instead assume that you don't have any concept about fact as phenomenon.

 

[NxNW]

Apparently you have never read a basic epistemological text and reject first order logic. (...)

Perhaps, instead of assuming I don't know what the word means, you should instead assume that you don't have any concept about fact as phenomenon.

No assumption was necessary; you demonstrated your lack of understanding quite definitively.

You've also avoided responding to the videos, photos, and intercepted messages of the insurrectionists wearing 'civil war Jan 6' shirts, stating that they intended to kill the Vice President, and stating their intent to overthrow the government. But since you referred to it as 'alleged', I guess it's all CGI? Let's see how that plays out.

 

[Lain Iwakura]

No assumption was necessary; you demonstrated your lack of understanding quite definitively.

You've also avoided responding to the videos, photos, and intercepted messages of the insurrectionists wearing 'civil war Jan 6' shirts, stating that they intended to kill the Vice President, and stating their intent to overthrow the government. But since you referred to it as 'alleged', I guess it's all CGI? Let's see how that plays out.

The fact that you apparently lack the capacity to understand the interpretation of phenomenon is the sole issue. I would get a better response from a wall.