Texas gun nut Brandon Herrera addresses theories that the assassination attempt was staged.
(www.youtube.com)
🤔💭 Theory 😲💡
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (85)
sorted by:
Edit: I have come to understand that I completely misunderstood the post I was responding to. I have apologized for my error and retract this and my follow up statements. I will keep it, both as a penance for a "mia culpa," and because I hate deleting information.
End Edit.
People should not speak what they think or investigate certain clues or ideas because someone MIGHT have died? Really? Maybe we should be reporting our neighbors if they aren't of the right ethnicity. Let's do the whole concentrating camp thing again. It was so much fun the first time.
Anyone who tries to silence opinions or beliefs that differ from their own by appeals to emotion and "moral superiority" are either glowies or still completely stuck in the matrix.
Which are you?
Pure irony.
Posting what you consider to be a morally superior opinion and attempting to brow-beat me into silence for projecting that I'm doing exactly what you're doing.
I wasn't calling you out for using morally superior rhetoric, nor was I attempting to silence you. I was calling you out for using someone's death (which may or may not have actually happened) to express righteous indignation to attempt to silence or shame someone to halt the entire line of legitimate investigation into the truth on this topic.
It is exactly the same tactic that has always been used to silence investigation into the Cabal, going back forever, which is why I called it out. It is essential that we not use these tactics to shut down conversations or investigations.
I literally have no idea what you're even talking about.
You probably either misread a comment I made or are replying to someone else.
Looking back over the thread, I think I did in fact misunderstand you. It seems I thought the contexts of posts was different than it was. That doesn't happen too often to me, but looking back, it seems it happened here. Regardless of what I thought I saw, I should have been more explanatory in my first post, rather than accusatory. So even if I had been correct in my reading comprehension, I should have been more diplomatic
For all errors I want to offer my apology.
Since I made a big todo about it, I will explain what I thought I saw.
This began with the first response in this thread, where it was
Then came a very reasonable response of how and why it might have been staged, which I agreed was sensible. It turns out this response was yours, yet I very much thought your response was in opposition to this, which I'll get to.
Then came:
Which was in response to your hypothetical in support of it, and then came a response that I thought was in opposition to this supporting response:
This sounds to me like you are chastising, and calling unhinged, anyone who is not focusing on the "honor and reverence deserved by the firefighter and his family."
Since any idea of this being a staged event has some moral difficulties to deal with regarding the death, or potential death, of the firefighter, such a castigation suggests that we should not be entertaining these ideas because it neglects the "deserved respect". In other words, that the thing that must be focused on is the respect of the firefighter, and if you entertain any other ideas, you are unhinged and should stfu.
I will now admit that I responded to this sentence without reading the rest of the post it was contained in. It was late, I was tired, and I have heard so many times in the past few days how we shouldn't be talking about this, mostly because of the death of the firefighter.
I got fed up, and I took it out on you, even though in full context of what you said, I do not now think you deserved it at all. On the contrary, I fully agree with you.
I have since edited my first post to include my misunderstanding.
Again, I apologize.