Plus she’s lesbian. She (basically) admitted it!! Say no more.
See, I can understand the 1st sentence as a part of delusional mind. I could even swear I knew people like that - back in winter of 1992 when many of Bosnians and Croats were waking up to the reality of Serb aggression I saw and heard many of individuals who, in my mind, lost a fight with reality, it was just too much for them and in their mind they started developing a new mindset that will counter the perceived weakness of the “old mindset”; the one that experienced quite a shocking blow, the one that saw 10 year old being hit by sniper or grown man whimpering like a baby after all night beating or just by simply seeing his friends being shot by a single bullet in the back of the head and then left in the ditch.
So, the “new mindset” had to be developed in the struggle to survive and their outward appearance started to harden but only in speech; the ideas and invented stories of the things they would like to do to even out. I don’t think that any of these people longed about post-mortem glory - they were too numb to comprehend their self like that; actually, they comprehended themselves as already dead.
But, they were pretty docile and disorganized, they were just bunch of individuals that were extremely difficult to manage and in most cases they would be just left alone and they would sink even further into the depths of their own mind game. Eventually, they would start drinking or doing drugs and their existence would be just a luck. Luck in a sense that they were lucky to escape a bullet or lucky to escape a grenades falling onto cities; they had enough of instinct, that strange human reflex that avoids going via brain.
At one point, someone of intelligence and nasty intent put a number of these people together into an army formation - a platoon or something - and together in an organized fashion and with clear instruction and logistical support these men, and in lot of cases orphaned teenagers - did the most outrageous criminal acts allegedly on behalf of Bosnians (the acts WE never asked for nor ever wanted and to this date, in part, this is the reason i don’t go back home anymore b/c it’s all eff’d up).
They were not - in my opinion - people who kill people; they were “guns” who killed people and someone else was pulling the trigger.
I know, this may sound like a morning rumbling and guess what, it is. It’s just that I’ve seen it and have been trying to formulate it for decades now. I just believe that people like the men and teenagers I met and knew of then exist everywhere in the world - high on capacity and intent low on figuring it all out.
Incorrect. There are people who find a link between George H. W Bush and Hinckley. Perhaps through university connections. You can Google for this topic, but the pages that post this particular conspiracy tend to highlight the Bushes as part of a “Reptilian” conspiracy.
There is always a conspiracy theory. Always. People who like a particular conspiracy theory sometimes like to say that theirs is plausible, and not at all like the “insane” ones. IMHO, its just an artifact of the human mind’s ability to find patterns.
Like Hunter said, “When God crapped out the third caveman a conspiracy was hatched against one of them”
But they may be in a completely different situation then the people we’re talking about here. Not every nut case is a subdued malcontent with minimal willpower. Some of them, if they don’t shoot a politician, go and shoot up schools or restaurants, or climb a clock tower and start popping people off at random. They don’t have to have someone else pulling the strings.
On Sirhan Sirhan, according to the Wik, in trial the defense specifically tried to present Sirhan’s act as that of a demented act. In his case, however, he had nursed a rage against Israel for decades and how it’s support could be lessened. He chose Kennedy, perhaps seeing him–as did many–as the presumptive next President, whose support of Israel, in the general sense, would be assured.
His assassination of RFK was a political assassination no different than those throughout history.
I think this discussion is better suited to IMHO than GQ.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
People do things.
One’s inability to discern a motive does not constitute evidence of a conspiracy. More generally: a lack of knowledge on one’s part does not prove an extraordinary explanation.
I can’t figure out why that guy swerved in traffic and nearly hit me this morning, therefore it was CIA orbital mind control lasers.
Wait, what? You hate to bring the legitimate subject of gun control into a conspiracy discussion?
Only that I imagine the gun control subject is beaten to death already, and if I mention it, someone will pop up and say, “Dweeb, we already talked about that…what gives you the right to mention it!!!”
So, in response to other information providers…I didn’t know Oswald tried to kill someone else, or that he was on a talk show.
I knew it!!
I have seen a convincing case made that LHO’s original, and possibly only target was John Connelly, and JFK became a target of opportunity. It’s a bit twisted, but Connelly (then governor of Texas) had been Secretary of Defense when the Army rejected Oswald’s request to have his dishonorable discharge converted to a general or honorable one.
There is no doubt in my mind that LHO was the sole assassin, and the odds of any conspiracy behind him are nil. Thinking otherwise requires dismissing the plentiful evidence and wishing away the fact that a lone nut can inflict terrible damage.
And now we’re both on the CIA hit list.
Oswald killed Kennedy because of his Cuba policy, Sirhan killed Bobby because he thought Bobby was a Zionist puppet, and Ray killed King because Ray was a violent segregationist who didn’t like King’s civil rights activities.
It’s easy to be a pawn when you are backed by a rook and defended on the long diagonal by a bishop.
What?
Ray more likely thought he would profit from killing King. There isn’t much evidence that he was motivated solely by hatred. However he was crazy also, so none of these motivations have to be rooted in rational thought.
It doesn’t fit the timeline. Connally was Secretary of the Navy from January 1961-December of 1961. Oswald had been discharged from the Marines (not the Army)in 1960, found out the discharge had been undesirable in 1962, and appealed it. The appeal was denied in 1963. So, Connally wasn’t SecNav when Oswald was discharged (William Franke was), or when he appealed and was denied (Fred Korth).
(I shoulda looked up the small details there - my bad.) I know all that. Oswald apparently didn’t, or didn’t care; he saw Connally as the bad guy and decided to take his shot - or so the theory goes. Since we don’t have one single scrap of evidence as to his motivations, it makes as much sense as anything and does have the advantage of a few frail facts to string together.
Lee Oswald was a Communist who objected to Kennedy’s treatment of Castro in Cuba, including Kennedy’s attempts to assassinate Castro. I think at this point JFK had also had a South Vietnamese leader assassinated. JFK pretty much brought that on himself.
Sirhan Sirhan was an ethnic Palestinian who objected to RFK’s support of the Israeli war machine.
Of course, the embargo against Cuba and US support of Israel’s military continue to this day, so one-off assassination clearly doesn’t work well as a tool of policy.
Once you accept this, you don’t have to spend any more time trying to analyze it.
And of course, if we take as given that John Hinckley shot at Reagan to impress Jodie Foster, well, she’s pretty famously a lesbian, and he’s in a psych ward. So that didn’t work either.
But the, “impress Jodie Foster,” explanation seemed too apolitical to me, like a false explanation. But Wikipedia thinks there’s good evidence for it. So there you go. Assassination is sometimes a desperate act in a hopeless cause, and the cause then tends to remain hopeless.