WI: Columbine Inside Job

Status
Not open for further replies.
IC: And how would the Administration/Opposition benefit from it?

jones9.png


Benefit?! THEY'RE THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!! THEY DON'T DO PLOTS THAT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE!

(I'm sorry, I just want to post some crap here before this thread gets locked. :D)
 
Last edited:
I always wonder how does an organization with no military strength whatsoever could take on the No. 1 superpower of the world... wait, I got it: ponies. Lots and lots of ponies. :eek::D

Marc A
 
My two cents:

Otherwise like other users already mentioned: The motivation about Columbine being in inside job is nuts and only comprehensible if you are a Alex Jones type of thinker ;)

37119587.jpg
 
What if the Government was Behind the Columbine Shooting in April 1999?

Did anyone actually read the OP? What do the first two words say?

What If.

Those two words rather strongly imply that the government was NOT behind the Columbine shooting.

The OP author is guilty of writing a rather vague and poorly written OP, but that's it, and by no means warrants this rather crass dogpile.

The OP has nowhere claimed that the government was in fact responsible for the shootings. It'd be nice if people wouldn't condemn the OP for something they haven't done.
 
Did anyone actually read the OP? What do the first two words say?

What If.

Those two words rather strongly imply that the government was NOT behind the Columbine shooting.

The OP author is guilty of writing a rather vague and poorly written OP, but that's it, and by no means warrants this rather crass dogpile.

I read the OP. While its surface structure seems harmless enough, its deep structure implies government complacency in Columbine.
 
I read the OP. While its surface structure seems harmless enough, its deep structure implies government complacency in Columbine.

And even its deep structure does, the reaction has still been overboard, especially the calls for bans. As you said, it implies. It is, by itself, by no means sufficient evidence to convict the OP of being a conspiracy theorist. They may very well be, but I'm quite fond of the concept 'innocent before proven guilty', and nothing even remotely approaching proof has been presented.
 
And even its deep structure does, the reaction has still been overboard, especially the calls for bans. As you said, it implies. It is, by itself, by no means sufficient evidence to convict the OP of being a conspiracy theorist. They may very well be, but I'm quite fond of the concept 'innocent before proven guilty', and nothing even remotely approaching proof has been presented.

I tend to agree. What many people in this thread are doing is suggesting the OP be kicked/banned because of the topic of the thread is resembling a conspiracy theory rather than the post itself clearly containing one. It is just a What If.

Now, if the OP would write what the actual chain of events for Columbine being an "inside job" would be, we might be able to comment on whether it would be closer to CT and/or ASB or whether a plausible (even if just barely so) scenario could be constructed.
 
Are you asking WI they did it and they were caught? If 'they' is the ATF looking to create an anti-gun national mood then I guess the ATF would be disbanded and Clinton would face a lot, I mean a lot, of heat to prove he knew nothing.

The ATF probably wouldn't get a successor, given that it's been 7 years since the ATF had a head approved by congress - fun fact - so it's unlikely the NRA (now elevated to saintly status, of course) would let the lawmakers it bankrolls play any part in creating a whole new firearm control agency if it wasn't prepared IOTL to let the existing one appoint a new head.

So what does this mean for gun control in the US? By which I mean the control of the distribution and flow of firearms within existing (1999) laws, not the creation of new ones. And this is where I bow out of this post, because I don't have the expertise to speculate further on these specifics.
 
*Goes off of the Forums four hours ago . . . . . . Comes back on to a thread with 73 replies in that time*

WTF Happened!?!
 
Well it's good to see that the forums are nice and welcoming to new members. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm just in a charitable mood but how many other new members have started out posting fairly vague and short questions rather than full-sized what ifs? Got to agree with Basileus that at the moment it's simply a what if, not an out and out conspiracy theory. As for the talk of deep structure, I'm not really sure how you can draw much in the way of valid conclusions since the sentence in question has all the depth of a shallow puddle. If you think it's breaking the rules then notify a mod, if it's just a bit misguided or unintentionally skirting the edges of the rules then a polite explanation and suggestion of their possibly wanting to expand on it a bit seems in line, everybody just jumping in and turning it into a three ring circus just seems to be crass to me.
 

The Vulture

Banned
My cousin was present at Columbine and could easily have been killed if he hadn't gotten out the nearest door. Sorry if I'm a little sore on the topic being made a stupid political weapon.
 
If the government is willing to stage a shooting, why not create a fictional nation so the US could chop off Panama to build a canal in the 1900's? Or could be a misspelling.

The US had a lot to gain from staging a coup in Panama so it could gain a canal. What does it have to gain from shooting random school kids?
 
My cousin was present at Columbine and could easily have been killed if he hadn't gotten out the nearest door. Sorry if I'm a little sore on the topic being made a stupid political weapon.

Understandable, I didn't know anyone in Columbine and I think it is repulsive to make it into a stupid political weapon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top