Another school shooting

[JLMACN]

Police: Man Held After LA Schools Threatened

A California man was arrested and nine guns, including rifles and a shotgun, were seized after threats were posted on Facebook against Los Angeles elementary schools, police said Monday.

Kyle Bangayan, 24, of Pomona was booked into the downtown jail Sunday for investigation of making criminal threats, police Cmdr. Andrew Smith said. He remained in jail with bail set at $500,000.

Police and FBI agents went to the east Hollywood home of Bangayan's father after a resident notified authorities about the threatening postings that referred to the deadly school shootings in Connecticut, Smith said.

"When we get information like this, we take it very seriously, even more so now in light of the Connecticut school shootings," Smith said.

On Friday, Adam Lanza, 20, shot and killed 20 children and six adults before killing himself at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.

The names of the Los Angeles schools and details about the threats were not immediately released.

Detectives and the FBI were still investigating.

The joint investigation has been turned over to Los Angeles police, and there won't be any federal charges, FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said.

When police and FBI agents arrived at the east Hollywood home, the suspect's father gave permission for a search, authorities said.

Nine weapons and ammunition were confiscated, including rifles, a shotgun and handguns, authorities said.

It's not yet known if the weapons belonged to the father or the suspect. No weapons were found at Bangayan's residence in Pomona.

The father's telephone number is unlisted. There is no listing for Kyle Bangayan in Pomona.

The home is in a working-class neighborhood about eight miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Pomona is about 30 miles to the east.

School shooting stopped in Los Angeles

 

[ThaG]

Well just to put this out there Mexico gun laws are way more strict than Americas....they literally have one gun store for the whole country and it can takes months and stacks of paper work to get a gun...yet they still blow America out the water when it comes to gun violence

That's organized crime. Not random dudes going on rampage every other day.

Big difference

 

[ThaG]

ThaG doesn't mind murdering children if he believes they won't have a "fullfilling" life. He has stated this in the Gathering of The Minds forum.

So, these 20 children being murdered in cold blood doesn't even faze him.

Believe that.

That'a a severe misinterpretation of what I have said.

I am pro infanticide because I do not consider a newborn to be a person.

Killing a 5-year old is not infanticide, it is murder. A 5-year old is already a person.

Big difference

 

[JLMACN]

That'a a severe misinterpretation of what I have said.

I am pro infanticide because I do not consider a newborn to be a person.

Killing a 5-year old is not infanticide, it is murder. A 5-year old is already a person.

Big difference

And there you have it folks.

Not my words ..........his.

 

[JLMACN]

That'a a severe misinterpretation of what I have said.

I am pro infanticide because I do not consider a newborn to be a person.

Killing a 5-year old is not infanticide, it is murder. A 5-year old is already a person.

Big difference

So basically......if this was a hospital full of new born babies, ThaG wouldn't give 2 shits because to him NO ONE DIED.

 

[S.SAVAGE]

That'a a severe misinterpretation of what I have said.

I am pro infanticide because I do not consider a newborn to be a person.

Killing a 5-year old is not infanticide, it is murder. A 5-year old is already a person.

Big difference

Man.

I used to read your posts thinking of the level of intellect you have, then the homie 2-0-sixx had mentioned you were an MIT graduate or some shit.


...then I read this & realized you have got to be the most stupid mother fucker I have ever had the displeasure of reading your retarded ass comments.

newborns not a person, right?

you obviously do not have kids & I hope you never create one.

Now go fuck yourself faggot.

 

[ThaG]

And there you have it folks.

Not my words ..........his.

That's a perfectly valid and respectable philosophical position

Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer

FAQ

Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.

 

[ThaG]

Man.

I used to read your posts thinking of the level of intellect you have, then the homie 2-0-sixx had mentioned you were an MIT graduate or some shit.


...then I read this & realized you have got to be the most stupid mother fucker I have ever had the displeasure of reading your retarded ass comments.

newborns not a person, right?

you obviously do not have kids & I hope you never create one.

Now go fuck yourself faggot.

And this is why we can not have a level-headed discussion on these issues...

 

[S.SAVAGE]

That's a perfectly valid and respectable philosophical position

Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer

FAQ

Nobody cares what your faggot books say.

 

[S.SAVAGE]

And this is why we can not have a level-headed discussion on these issues...

exactly, because you come out the woodworks talkin about a newborn is not a person.


...the conversation STOPPED being level headed when you made that comment & decided to press the "submit" button.

 

[ThaG]

Nobody cares what your faggot books say.

Anti-intellectualism is not a good thing

 

[ThaG]

So basically......if this was a hospital full of new born babies, ThaG wouldn't give 2 shits because to him NO ONE DIED.

The parents would not be very happy.

But the babies themselves would not really realize what's happening, certainly not more than the thousands and millions of cows, pigs, chicken, turkeys, etc. we slaughter every day with little remorse.

 

[ThaG]

exactly, because you come out the woodworks talkin about a newborn is not a person.


...the conversation STOPPED being level headed when you made that comment & decided to press the "submit" button.

See, sometimes the application of cold logic can lead you to some quite unpleasant conclusions that go directly against cherished, core identity-forming beliefs.

That does not mean that something is wrong with the logic, it means that your cherished, core-identity forming beliefs are irrational.

And here is the root of mankind's tragedy - most people handle that conflict by throwing away logic and digging in their heels with their irrational, often ultimately self-destructive worldviews and behavior. That's the natural thing to do. It takes quite a lot of training in the rigorous application of logical thinking and the development of an ability to recognize those cognitive biases that prevent you from seeing the world for what it is to overcome those natural tendencies. And even that is often not sufficient.

That's the root of the distrust towards intellectuals by people who have not gone through that training - they often see them as evil people not to be trusted precisely because some intellectuals do manage to do away with the cherished beliefs about how life should be that are shared by the rest of society. Of course, the validity of beliefs is not determined by the their numeric prevalence in a society...

 

[JLMACN]

See, sometimes the application of cold logic can lead you to some quite unpleasant conclusions that go directly against cherished, core identity-forming beliefs.

That does not mean that something is wrong with the logic, it means that your cherished, core-identity forming beliefs are irrational.

And here is the root of mankind's tragedy - most people handle that conflict by throwing away logic and digging in their heels with their irrational, often ultimately self-destructive worldviews and behavior. That's the natural thing to do. It takes quite a lot of training in the rigorous application of logical thinking and the development of an ability to recognize those cognitive biases that prevent you from seeing the world for what it is to overcome those natural tendencies. And even that is often not sufficient.

That's the root of the distrust towards intellectuals by people who have not gone through that training - they often see them as evil people not to be trusted precisely because some intellectuals do manage to do away with the cherished beliefs about how life should be that are shared by the rest of society. Of course, the validity of beliefs is not determined by the their numeric prevalence in a society...

You have gone through training to be logical?

Bro, go through training to be a practical human being with some emotional intelligence.

Quite trying to be an intellectual and try to be a human you fucking robot.

 

[SC_408]

That'a a severe misinterpretation of what I have said.

I am pro infanticide because I do not consider a newborn to be a person.

Killing a 5-year old is not infanticide, it is murder. A 5-year old is already a person.

Big difference

There is a reason why we name newborns, and call them a he or she. Come on bro, are you seriously reading what you are saying? Pro Infantcide WTF? I hate the Siccness sometimes

 

[SC_408]

The parents would not be very happy.

But the babies themselves would not really realize what's happening, certainly not more than the thousands and millions of cows, pigs, chicken, turkeys, etc. we slaughter every day with little remorse.

And that is the baby's fault, not knowing whether they can realize what is happening? WTF? Lol, do you expect humans to be born with ability to talk and know what is right or wrong out the gate or what? Comparing a human baby to animals, you shittin me, you are a fraud

 

[S.SAVAGE]

I would like to say T @ThaG is trolling, but he is obviously one of those that have zero morality & zero value for life.


Next week headlines:

"Siccness.net poster ThaG shoots up pediatrics ward at local hospital, kills infants because they were not yet a person"

 

[SC_408]

I would like to say T @ThaG is trolling, but he is obviously one of those that have zero morality & zero value for life.


Next week headlines:

"Siccness.net poster ThaG shoots up pediatrics ward at local hospital, kills infants because they were not yet a person"

God forbid he ever has an infant that dies, but if he ever does, I bet he would just throw his baby down the trash since he considers a human baby in the same level as a fuckin pig or someshit.

 

[ThaG]

I would like to say T @ThaG is trolling, but he is obviously one of those that have zero morality & zero value for life.


Next week headlines:

"Siccness.net poster ThaG shoots up pediatrics ward at local hospital, kills infants because they were not yet a person"

Strange how the thought of doing this has never crossed my mind.

When I advocate infanticide, I do this from a population control perspective - the idea is for it to become a state policy and eventually a perfectly acceptable thing and a social norm. Doing what you suggest is totally pointless. And very detrimental to one's inclusive fitness

P.S. There is no such thing as morality in nature

 

[ThaG]

In the US, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

"Mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts … These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change." Every parent can connect with what President Barack Obama said about the murder of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut. There can scarcely be a person on earth with access to the media who is untouched by the grief of the people of that town.

It must follow that what applies to the children murdered there by a deranged young man also applies to the children murdered in Pakistan by a sombre American president. These children are just as important, just as real, just as deserving of the world's concern. Yet there are no presidential speeches or presidential tears for them, no pictures on the front pages of the world's newspapers, no interviews with grieving relatives, no minute analysis of what happened and why.

If the victims of Mr Obama's drone strikes are mentioned by the state at all, they are discussed in terms which suggest that they are less than human. The people who operate the drones, Rolling Stone magazine reports, describe their casualties as "bug splats", "since viewing the body through a grainy-green video image gives the sense of an insect being crushed". Or they are reduced to vegetation: justifying the drone war, Obama's counterterrorism adviser Bruce Riedel explained that "you've got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back".

Like George Bush's government in Iraq, Obama's administration neither documents nor acknowledges the civilian casualties of the CIA's drone strikes in north-west Pakistan. But a report by the law schools at Stanford and New York universities suggests that during the first three years of his time in office, the 259 strikes for which he is ultimately responsible killed between 297 and 569 civilians, of whom at least 64 were children. These are figures extracted from credible reports: there may be more which have not been fully documented.

The wider effects on the children of the region have been devastating. Many have been withdrawn from school because of fears that large gatherings of any kind are being targeted. There have been several strikes on schools since Bush launched the drone programme that Obama has expanded so enthusiastically: one of Bush's blunders killed 69 children.

The study reports that children scream in terror when they hear the sound of a drone. A local psychologist says that their fear and the horrors they witness is causing permanent mental scarring. Children wounded in drone attacks told the researchers that they are too traumatised to go back to school and have abandoned hopes of the careers they might have had. Their dreams as well as their bodies have been broken.

Obama does not kill children deliberately. But their deaths are an inevitable outcome of the way his drones are deployed. We don't know what emotional effect these deaths might have on him, as neither he nor his officials will discuss the matter: almost everything to do with the CIA's extrajudicial killings in Pakistan is kept secret. But you get the impression that no one in the administration is losing much sleep over it.

Two days before the murders in Newtown, Obama's press secretary was asked about women and children being killed by drones in Yemen and Pakistan. He refused to answer, on the grounds that such matters are "classified". Instead, he directed the journalist to a speech by John Brennan, Obama's counter-terrorism assistant. Brennan insists that "al-Qaida's killing of innocents, mostly Muslim men, women and children, has badly tarnished its appeal and image in the eyes of Muslims".

He appears unable to see that the drone war has done the same for the US. To Brennan the people of north-west Pakistan are neither insects nor grass: his targets are a "cancerous tumour", the rest of society "the tissue around it". Beware of anyone who describes a human being as something other than a human being.

Yes, he conceded, there is occasionally a little "collateral damage", but the US takes "extraordinary care [to] ensure precision and avoid the loss of innocent life". It will act only if there's "an actual ongoing threat" to American lives. This is cock and bull with bells on.

The "signature strike" doctrine developed under Obama, which has no discernible basis in law, merely looks for patterns. A pattern could consist of a party of unknown men carrying guns (which scarcely distinguishes them from the rest of the male population of north-west Pakistan), or a group of unknown people who look as if they might be plotting something. This is how wedding and funeral parties get wiped out; this is why 40 elders discussing royalties from a chromite mine were blown up in March last year. It is one of the reasons why children continue to be killed.

Obama has scarcely mentioned the drone programme and has said nothing about its killing of children. The only statement I can find is a brief and vague response during a video conference last January. The killings have been left to others to justify. In October the Democratic cheerleader Joe Klein claimed on MSNBC that "the bottom line in the end is whose four-year-old gets killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that four-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror". As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, killing four-year-olds is what terrorists do. It doesn't prevent retaliatory murders, it encourages them, as grief and revenge are often accomplices.

Most of the world's media, which has rightly commemorated the children of Newtown, either ignores Obama's murders or accepts the official version that all those killed are "militants". The children of north-west Pakistan, it seems, are not like our children. They have no names, no pictures, no memorials of candles and flowers and teddy bears. They belong to the other: to the non-human world of bugs and grass and tissue.

"Are we," Obama asked on Sunday, "prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" It's a valid question. He should apply it to the violence he is visiting on the children of Pakistan.

Twitter: G @George monbiot

A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com