Jump to content

New Orleans New Years Terror Attack [15 dead, 20+ critical/injured]


Wally Fairway

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One of my “real Texan” bona fides is that Billy Sol Estes is a peripheral relative.  He turned up at a family function I attended as a kid in the early 90’s, stayed a while, and then left.  Following his cameo appearance, a bunch of the aunts and grannies— church of Christ ladies to a one— tutted about poor ole Billy Sol and how he’d been railroaded and mistreated. And Billy Sol was famous for taking a turn at the pulpit. 
 

Anyway, later at a “core family” dinner my dad mentioned that no matter how Billy Sol might have been railroaded it couldn’t have been worse than how he absolutely conned the people who were the targets of his preaching and that everyone should know better than to listen to a “woe is me” tale from a crook. 

tenor.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t think the “recent convert” angle  is going to hold, given that this appears to be his birth name and that his family in Beaumont is speaking to local media through an imam.  I think the source for that claim is an ex-wife’s subsequent husband.  He could have begun acting much more externally devout and rigid as part of the radicalization process, which is pretty common and could read as a conversion. 

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/imam-shamsud-din-jabbars-family-says-tragic-incident-driven-by-hatred-and-ignorance-beaumont-new-orleans-attack-islamic-state

 

 

Recent radicalization. Whereas the Chechyns were more from birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

this is the stupid part pronghorn.   It doesn’t show anything but your lack of critical thinking skills and your misguided belief that anyone should talk to the FBI in a situation like that.

Exhibit A - why don’t you talk to Richard Jewell * about whether you can trust law enforcement to act correctly when they are bound and determined to find a terrorist.

Exhibit B - Louisiana insurance commissioner was indicted and convicted for lying to an FBI officer in his questioning about the legality. It turns out the insurance commissioner had not done nothing wrong, so the lying to cop thing was the only avenue they had to get him.   The FBI agent took notes of the discussion, and when the insurance commissioner asked for production of the notes to show that he had not lied, the federal fifth circuit court of appeal said he had no right to see or use the agent’s notes to prove he had not lied and was innocent.    

Any Christian pastor who wasn’t a numbskull should tell his congregation the exact same thing if congregation members were being interviewed by the FBI and law-enforcement

*Edit: oops.  he dead

And until very recently, the FBI refused to record or video witness and suspect interviews.  The ostensible reason they put forth was that their interrogation techniques might make them look bad to a jury or fact-finder.  If that's their excuse that they put out to the public, you can be relatively damn sure it actually means "so we can lie our asses off" about what the witness said.

Citation, yes Turley but before brain worms.  https://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/11/why-the-fbi-doesnt-record-interrogations/

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ABSR said:

Yeah, looking at the truck bed afterward it did not look like a "real" bomb was in there.   You don't put gas cans/gas around a real bomb or effective IED.   I also saw a propane tank, which could cause a larger blast/fire, but nothing like C4 or real explosives.   Maybe this will be proved wrong but it did not look like a well done IED/explosive was used and it also explains why the truck was not blown apart.    Pretty sure a real explosive would have ripped the truck apart.

A Green Beret should have been able to do something far larger and more competent than what he did.  It’s odd. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A Green Beret should have been able to do something far larger and more competent than what he did.  It’s odd. 

Yeah, loading up a truck bed with gasoline and fireworks is a big fireball but not really all that destructive aside from the fire. No, or minimal, blast wave and fragmentation. And he's a dude who KNOWS how to achieve an effect on a target with explosives if he's a Green Beret

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yeah, loading up a truck bed with gasoline and fireworks is a big fireball but not really all that destructive aside from the fire. No, or minimal, blast wave and fragmentation. And he's a dude who KNOWS how to achieve an effect on a target with explosives if he's a Green Beret

Only if he is an Explosives team member does he go to blow shit up school.

But yeah, I am surprised it was so shitty. Reminds me of some 1980's Latin American rebel attempt at a bombing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Only if he is an Explosives team member does he go to blow shit up school.

But yeah, I am surprised it was so shitty. Reminds me of some 1980's Latin American rebel attempt at a bombing.

Still going to have a basic rudimentary understanding of it due to being around the other members that are the explosives expert. Just a basic kitchen demo class would gain more knowledge than what was put together in the back of that Tesla (sorry, I still can't consider that a truck).

Would be nice to have some DNA to confirm that is who they say it is/was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BillyGoatHill said:

Still going to have a basic rudimentary understanding of it due to being around the other members that are the explosives expert. Just a basic kitchen demo class would gain more knowledge than what was put together in the back of that Tesla (sorry, I still can't consider that a truck).

Would be nice to have some DNA to confirm that is who they say it is/was.

Yeah, agree, I am saying don't point at SF = bad ass bombmaker. Illiterate peruvian maoists made better.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I can see that a mosque advises their members to have legal representation when talking to the FBI. I would do the same. The FBI would not be interviewing you to find out what you knew about the terrorists, they would be interviewing you to see if you’re also a terrorist. This is the sole purpose of an investigation into someone who is already dead.

Which of course is the entire fucking point of Pronghorn’s embedded tweet.  The implication is the mosque has more interest in protecting terrorists than uncovering truth. 

I cannot imagine why any religious authority would put out such an advisory in the first place. It’s fucking ridiculous. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Which of course is the entire fucking point of Pronghorn’s embedded tweet.  The implication is the mosque has more interest in protecting terrorists than uncovering truth. 

I cannot imagine why any religious authority would put out such an advisory in the first place. It’s fucking ridiculous. 

Yeah man, we know.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Which of course is the entire fucking point of Pronghorn’s embedded tweet.  The implication is the mosque has more interest in protecting terrorists than uncovering truth. 

I cannot imagine why any religious authority would put out such an advisory in the first place. It’s fucking ridiculous. 

Different people read a situation differently. Failing to cooperate with the authorities is not a sign of guilt. As others have posted here, Richard Jewel is the perfect example why your interactions with law enforcement need to involve a lawyer.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I thought I might date myself. I’m in my 40s and really too young to know about him if not for the family and West Texas CoC connections.  What a legendary bullshit artist, he’d have done so well in the 2020s.

I hear you. Having grown up in West Texas and being 53yo myself, his...um...exploits were heavily covered in the local news, and my dad was an avid news junkie before CNN made it cool. Plus, he ended up serving time in the federal prison that's located in my hometown.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Citing Rod Blagojevich’s thoughts as expressed to Joe Rogan is possibly the most insane way I’ve ever seen someone argue against the U.S. justice system. 

 

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

i’m sure Rogan interrogated him with hard hitting questions like, “ really, that’s fascinating…”

Blagovich was perhaps the most deserving person of criminal time you could possibly imagine.   But having said that, I have no doubt that the FBI and justice department could’ve violated his rights in all kinds of ways trying to get a conviction for a crime for which he was guilty as hell.   

 

I'm well aware of where I'm posting. Y'all can pile on as you wish. Rogan is a fantastic interviewer (for starters) and I thought it was an interesting listen. Blagojevich came across pretty slimy but if you're attempting to understand such a broken system I think it's important to view it from every angle. 

Edited by ztejas
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Different people read a situation differently. Failing to cooperate with the authorities is not a sign of guilt. As others have posted here, Richard Jewel is the perfect example why your interactions with law enforcement need to involve a lawyer.

Again - this is what I'm mainly getting at. 

Different strokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Since it needs to be spelled out for certain people:

Maybe this ain't their first rodeo with their congregation being harassed for completely law-abiding, faith-based behavior.

And maybe some members of the congregation are relatively new to the United States and may therefore still be laboring under the misapprehension that all law enforcement officers are fair and objective, respectful of the Constitution, would never misrepresent the truth to the subject of an investigatory interview, etc. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Their congregants have nothing to do with that piece of shit, until proven otherwise (and they have zero obligation to help anyone carry that burden of proof)

I agree but the guy just killed 15 people. The circles he was in should be subjected to investigation.

Granted I don't trust that "investigation" but there has to be a middle ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

TIL saying "don't talk to the cops without a lawyer" is equivalent to telling people to vote for trump

Well, you’re a child, so it’s not surprising you’re learning this. The latter is astronomically more prevalent in American Christian churches.  I don’t know if they’re “equivalent” but they both fall under the Things Preachers Should Not Say category. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Their congregants have nothing to do with that piece of shit, until proven otherwise (and they have zero obligation to help anyone carry that burden of proof)

They have zero obligation, right, so stay the fuck out of it. They chose to clumsily enter the chat. That so many of you are defending the mosque is pretty eye-opening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

They have zero obligation, right, so stay the fuck out of it. They chose to clumsily enter the chat. That so many of you are defending the mosque is pretty eye-opening. 

I already said this: they've seen this movie before, and are acting accordingly. I can't really blame them for taking proactive steps to protect the people they care about from unwarranted harassment.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

Yes I'm sure that you're an ardent listener of his. 

Definitely not. I feel dumber for listening any time I hear him speak. He’s a shitty interviewer who lets his guests 100% control the narrative and lets them spread misinformation and disinformation with zero pushback.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ztejas said:

 

I'm well aware of where I'm posting. Y'all can pile on as you wish. Rogan is a fantastic interviewer (for starters) and I thought it was an interesting listen. Blagojevich came across pretty slimy but if you're attempting to understand such a broken system I think it's important to view it from every angle. 

No, Rogan is a meathead whose target audience is other meatheads. Yes, I realize he has a huge listening audience and I stand by what I said. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...