This post simply mentions two links of interesting points of view, following the mass murder that occurred in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
The first link is to Mike Adams of the Natural News website, who has published an article (and a companion video on You Tube) asking the question, "Why Did No One Fight Back? Questions Linger Over James Holmes Batman Movie Theater Shooting."
The second link, "Aftermath In Aurora: Child-Killer As Comforter-In-Chief",
is written by the well-known writer William Grigg, whom I have found to
be well-informed on any subject about which he writes. He raises questions about the
appropriateness of President Obama comforting the families, given that he has
overseen, approved, and justified attacks on innocent people in several
places, notably Yemen, over which he has no more jurisdiction than
James Holmes had in Colorado.
Each of the above postings presents sober facts and solid analysis, and raises honest issues and questions. I am interested in any comments by any regular readers of this blog.
There is a third post, of an admittedly more speculative nature, which suggests that the theater killing was pre-planned--we could say "conspired," meaning the knowing participation of at least one person in addition to the "lone gunman." In a time when the American public has been treated to murderous events such as the "raid" on the "compound" of "bin Laden" in Pakistan last year -- complete with staged "official White House photos," served up by an ignorant and complicit mass-media-cartel and swallowed whole by the American public, left, right, and center -- it may not be inappropriate to ask further questions, before we are distracted by the next event.
Your comments are welcome on this third post, as well.
The answer to the first post is obvious: because he had automatic weapons. It has been ably pointed out that if people in the audience had weapons and were shooting back, it probably would have made things much worse. especially once the police showed up. The notion that a proliferation of weapons make us safer has been thoroughly demolished. And the shooter had body armor, including a cup, so a kick wouldn't have done anything. But in the end, it's all the government's fault, of course.
ReplyDeleteThe second link does have a point, but it could as easily be made against any recent president.
The third link is really bad. Trying to reconstruct an act like this is impossible, especially at a far remove. That doesn't stop the poster from irresponsible speculation.
This all provides sad look into the minds of the far right. They hold themselves up as paragons of responsibility, even as they irresponsibly spread ideas they can't possibly verify. But it's all the government's fault.
RF, Seattle
Thanks for the comments, RF, and I think your points are well taken.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the man had carefully prepared himself to be able to kill a lot of people fast, at a minimum risk to himself -- body armor, automatic weapon, spare weapons, point-blank range, and element of complete surprise. He was surely able to get many fatal rounds fired in the first few seconds, before anyone could have possibly reacted. I cannot easily think of any way that the basic massacre could have been averted. (I'm assuming that the folks in the front rows, in the early moments, got the worst of it.)
It is imaginable, though, to me at least, that if a couple of people had been carrying concealed weapons, and had been very nervy, and very lucky with their shots, then the affair would not have gone on as long as it did, and the later victims might have been fewer in number.
As to its being "the government's fault" -- I certainly doubt that, as do you. But I think it entirely possible that Holmes may have been on medications (likely legitimate ones), which severely impaired his judgment and natural moral inhibitions, if any. And I even consider it possible that he had an accomplice.
Thanks for your thoughts.