US Government Found GUILTY Of Murdering Martin Luther King Jr.

13»

Comments

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    ? Plutarch, i posted that ? a month and a half ago, what the hell, man
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I’m the one with the burden of proof, and I think that I have been brought up some evidence that should be considered.
    short answer: i don't think it rises to the level that comes close to making me think it's a more reasonable explanation that the "official story." honestly, crazy dudes have assassinated guys throughout history for whatever reasons... only now, in modern times, we find that concept mysteriously hard to accept.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I don’t think that you ever answered my question(s) though: Do you think that it’s possible that the federal government had a hand in MLK’s death? To what extent do you think this possibility may be true, especially in light of old and new suggestive evidence?
    i thought i did, but ? it, here it goes again if i did:
    a. anything's POSSIBLE
    b. i don't think any "new suggestive evidence" means much. sorry, i am just unimpressed. and i really don't think the old evidence is going to suddenly sway me. what can i say, i have a sincere disbelief in internet conspiracy theories. it's not personal.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Yeah, I think that I can see that. Just know that I’m not an emotional person. I don’t get mad or outraged, especially over the internet. I’m honestly a “cold” person, and I’m an ? but a respectful ? .
    i will be honest: since the nuances of speech don't translate easily, i just assume the worst of everyone's posts, but that said, i also don't give a ? (for the most part) once i'm out of the thread and reading something else. so it's whatever.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    No, I stand by what I said. It did seem like you were implying that. You just didn’t say it literally. But if you weren’t implying that, then I just misunderstood you. And if that’s the case, then I was wrong and that’s my bad.
    well... i can't even argue this point anymore because of the downtime
    Plutarch wrote: »
    True. Again, I think it’s possible that Ray did it all by his lonesome and that he is guilty, but I just find that less credible than the opposite claim.
    i think the thing to do is go back and look at when people are assassinated -politicians, civil rights figures, whatever- and look at cases where there's no real debate about conspiracies and you'll find it's totally credible that some guy could just shoot MLK with a rifle. obviously i cannot PROVE this using my home computer or anything.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I’m assuming that you’re talking about pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment because you are, in fact, guilty? Ok, but I don’t see how that can be a strong argument for the case that Ray was guilty for sure, especially in light of other relevant facts.
    really, i'm just responding to the notion that the plea was somehow forced upon a man who would have NO REASON to plead.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I can’t give you the hard evidence that you’re probably asking for that will tell you for sure that Hoover planned MLK’s assassination.
    actually, what i'm saying is two things:
    01. lots of guys are basically saying the fact that Hoover was known to be underhanded means he was about assassinating dudes... yet there is no REAL EVIDENCE that Hoover was acting to have ANYONE assassinated. so really, what i am saying is, don't tell me the fact that Hoover was into ? tricks proves he assassinated someone.
    02. the hard evidence i actually am asking for is proof Hoover assassinated Fred Hampton since it keeps coming up.


    ...and see you in June with a response
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2013
    janklow wrote: »
    ? Plutarch, i posted that ? a month and a half ago, what the hell, man

    Heh, that made me laugh so hard.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I’m the one with the burden of proof, and I think that I have been brought up some evidence that should be considered.
    short answer: i don't think it rises to the level that comes close to making me think it's a more reasonable explanation that the "official story." honestly, crazy dudes have assassinated guys throughout history for whatever reasons... only now, in modern times, we find that concept mysteriously hard to accept.

    Hm, ok. We just might have to agree to disagree then. But sooner or later I’ll look more into this and see if there is any stronger evidence that suggests anything other than the official story. Until then, meh.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I don’t think that you ever answered my question(s) though: Do you think that it’s possible that the federal government had a hand in MLK’s death? To what extent do you think this possibility may be true, especially in light of old and new suggestive evidence?
    i thought i did, but ? it, here it goes again if i did:

    You might’ve. I just didn’t see it.
    janklow wrote: »
    a. anything's POSSIBLE

    Heh, sure…
    janklow wrote: »
    b. i don't think any "new suggestive evidence" means much. sorry, i am just unimpressed. and i really don't think the old evidence is going to suddenly sway me. what can i say, i have a sincere disbelief in internet conspiracy theories. it's not personal.

    Eh fair enough. But I don’t think that it’s just the internet. I’m willing to bet that there are more “scholarly” references that support this “conspiracy.” I think they would lend more credibility, but I don’t expect them to sway you, but I honestly don’t blame anyone who isn’t “swayed.”
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Yeah, I think that I can see that. Just know that I’m not an emotional person. I don’t get mad or outraged, especially over the internet. I’m honestly a “cold” person, and I’m an ? but a respectful ? .
    i will be honest: since the nuances of speech don't translate easily, i just assume the worst of everyone's posts, but that said, i also don't give a ? (for the most part) once i'm out of the thread and reading something else. so it's whatever.

    Meh, I’m kind of the opposite. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when I see their posts, especially stupid people or people who seem to be stupid.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    No, I stand by what I said. It did seem like you were implying that. You just didn’t say it literally. But if you weren’t implying that, then I just misunderstood you. And if that’s the case, then I was wrong and that’s my bad.
    well... i can't even argue this point anymore because of the downtime

    Ok, won’t get a complaint from me.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    True. Again, I think it’s possible that Ray did it all by his lonesome and that he is guilty, but I just find that less credible than the opposite claim.
    i think the thing to do is go back and look at when people are assassinated -politicians, civil rights figures, whatever- and look at cases where there's no real debate about conspiracies and you'll find it's totally credible that some guy could just shoot MLK with a rifle. obviously i cannot PROVE this using my home computer or anything.

    At this time, I honestly can’t think of any occurrences when political figures have been assassinated and there has not been a debate about conspiracies. I’m not saying that all of those conspiracies are credible though, but I do think that some of them at least raise some relevant issues. It’s generally credible that Ray might’ve acted alone, and according to Occam’s razor, this conclusion is probably the most logical. I just believe that circumstantial evidence complicates this conclusion and offers support for a different conclusion. But definitive proof escapes me, so I know that I can’t say too much.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I’m assuming that you’re talking about pleading guilty to something to mitigate your punishment because you are, in fact, guilty? Ok, but I don’t see how that can be a strong argument for the case that Ray was guilty for sure, especially in light of other relevant facts.
    really, i'm just responding to the notion that the plea was somehow forced upon a man who would have NO REASON to plead.

    Ok, I think that I understand now. But I’m not sure that he had no reason. One reason might’ve been to avoid the death penalty. If he had not taken the plea bargain and instead had tried his luck against circumstantial evidence that he had said was based on his stupidity (Ray was not a smart man at all) and collusion, then he would’ve faced being electrocuted, and he would’ve died without having the chance to explain his side. For a variety of reasons, innocent men have claimed guilt in court.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I can’t give you the hard evidence that you’re probably asking for that will tell you for sure that Hoover planned MLK’s assassination.
    actually, what i'm saying is two things:
    01. lots of guys are basically saying the fact that Hoover was known to be underhanded means he was about assassinating dudes... yet there is no REAL EVIDENCE that Hoover was acting to have ANYONE assassinated. so really, what i am saying is, don't tell me the fact that Hoover was into ? tricks proves he assassinated someone.

    02. the hard evidence i actually am asking for is proof Hoover assassinated Fred Hampton since it keeps coming up.

    Ok, I am going to have to backtrack on what I said about Hoover. I think that I can give you evidence that Hoover was ? , but I can’t give you evidence that Hoover directly assassinated Hampton; however, I think that I can give you, at the least, circumstantial evidence that the FBI (who obviously was headed by Hoover) had a role in Hampton’s death. For instance, Kenneth O’Reilly’s "Racial Matters": The FBI's Secret File on Black America, 1960-1972, Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall’s The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent, Jeffrey Haas’s The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther, and Dan Berger’s The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther all speak on this issue. The FBI and an angry Chicago police force (who had previously lost a few men to gunfight with the Black Panthers) illegally raided Hampton’s home. An FBI informant (who later killed himself after realizing that he unknowingly participated in an FBI hit) drugged Hampton, and after the ensuing “gunfight” (basically all of the gunfire was committed by the police), he was purposely shot to death in his sleep. Activists, reporters, citizens, and even a police chemist all contested the “official” investigation of the raid after those who conducted the raid were cleared of any wrongdoing.

    As with the family of MLK, the family of Hampton eventually received a settlement in a civil court case (because, again, the federal government will not indict itself in a federal court case) because of the obvious injustice that was done.
    janklow wrote: »
    ...and see you in June with a response

    Lol, no I’m good. The school semester is winding down, so I have a bit more time on my hands.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Heh, that made me laugh so hard.
    SUCCESS
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Hm, ok. We just might have to agree to disagree then. But sooner or later I’ll look more into this and see if there is any stronger evidence that suggests anything other than the official story. Until then, meh.
    well, look, fundamentally it's too contentious of an issue at this point for us to just, boom, completely agree. and we're only getting further away from the event and/or less dependent on actual hard evidence. so... this is where we are.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Eh fair enough. But I don’t think that it’s just the internet. I’m willing to bet that there are more “scholarly” references that support this “conspiracy.” I think they would lend more credibility, but I don’t expect them to sway you, but I honestly don’t blame anyone who isn’t “swayed.”
    i think what you're going to find as you get more scholarly is stuff like "the government's attitude contributed to an atmosphere that allowed it to happen blah blah blah" or "...well, anything's POSSIBLE." honestly, that's why i kind of have an issue with this stuff, because rather than just simply debating the topic, they're trying to Make A Point by convicting someone of SOMETHING.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Meh, I’m kind of the opposite. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when I see their posts, especially stupid people or people who seem to be stupid.
    as someone who has been moderating this forum LITERALLY FOREVER, i am just the saltiest dude and i assume the worst of every damn poster on this godforsaken forum
    Plutarch wrote: »
    At this time, I honestly can’t think of any occurrences when political figures have been assassinated and there has not been a debate about conspiracies.
    i'm thinking guys like Garfield and McKinley, for example. i may be simplifying it a little because in a lot of cases there's probably some random dude throwing out a conspiracy, but i think before the 1960s it wasn't such a big deal. although i guess there's a little Harding drama, so i don't know.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Ok, I think that I understand now. But I’m not sure that he had no reason. One reason might’ve been to avoid the death penalty. If he had not taken the plea bargain and instead had tried his luck against circumstantial evidence that he had said was based on his stupidity (Ray was not a smart man at all) and collusion, then he would’ve faced being electrocuted, and he would’ve died without having the chance to explain his side. For a variety of reasons, innocent men have claimed guilt in court.
    honestly? i think this is a lot of work to explain away that plea... but then i also think he did it, so, you know, bias ahoy.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Ok, I am going to have to backtrack on what I said about Hoover. I think that I can give you evidence that Hoover was ? , but I can’t give you evidence that Hoover directly assassinated Hampton; however, I think that I can give you, at the least, circumstantial evidence that the FBI (who obviously was headed by Hoover) had a role in Hampton’s death. For instance, Kenneth O’Reilly’s "Racial Matters": The FBI's Secret File on Black America, 1960-1972, Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall’s The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent, Jeffrey Haas’s The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther, and Dan Berger’s The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther all speak on this issue. The FBI and an angry Chicago police force (who had previously lost a few men to gunfight with the Black Panthers) illegally raided Hampton’s home. An FBI informant (who later killed himself after realizing that he unknowingly participated in an FBI hit) drugged Hampton, and after the ensuing “gunfight” (basically all of the gunfire was committed by the police), he was purposely shot to death in his sleep. Activists, reporters, citizens, and even a police chemist all contested the “official” investigation of the raid after those who conducted the raid were cleared of any wrongdoing.
    okay, let me just elaborate on what i believe (because there's some overlap):

    the raid? probably more "? " than "illegal," but okay, i agree it was done at the very least with the intent to ? over Hampton/Chicago Panthers/whoever.

    FBI had some connection to the situation through an informant? sure, true. and i think you can, again, take the position that they didn't work to resolve things peacefully. but honestly, i DO distinguish between "being ? that don't make things better" and "assassination plot."

    intentionally shot to death? i believe it. but i think it was a Chicago cop (i think this is the agreed-upon shooter) doing it because they thought it should be done. you've mentioned that they had past run-ins with the Panthers and i think we all KNOW they have some serious ? in their history over the years. so i don't see a larger conspiracy in some officer shooting Hampton.

    also, i THOUGHT the reason they got money from the civil suit was because they didn't just sue the federal government, but also the city and state.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Lol, no I’m good. The school semester is winding down, so I have a bit more time on my hands.
    whaaat