Tulsi Gabbard added to Terrorist list

#51
#51
RockyTop85 said:
Why?
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing she’s actually on the list. But an even harder time believing there would be a legitimate reason to put her on the list.

Is DHS fearful she’s going to hijack a plane? Encourage others to hijack a plane? Is she recruiting domestic terrorists to the cause over peanuts during a Delta flight?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL, GroverCleveland, RavinDave and 5 others
#52
#52
85SugarVol said:
I have a hard time believing she’s actually on the list. But an even harder time believing there would be a legitimate reason to put her on the list.

Is DHS fearful she’s going to hijack a plane? Encourage others to hijack a plane? Is she recruiting domestic terrorists to the cause over peanuts during a Delta flight?
Click to expand...
I think it's most likely BS
 
#54
#54
85SugarVol said:
I have a hard time believing she’s actually on the list. But an even harder time believing there would be a legitimate reason to put her on the list.

Is DHS fearful she’s going to hijack a plane? Encourage others to hijack a plane? Is she recruiting domestic terrorists to the cause over peanuts during a Delta flight?
Click to expand...
I understand the first sentence, the why is to the second sentence.

It seems, if she’s on the list, there are two explanations: she did something to earn her place* or an unknown somebody abused the process. Why is the latter more plausible?

* and this is the same media ecosystem that weaponizes audience ignorance. Remember “they’re not distributing comirnaty so you can’t get compensated for vaccine injuries” and “the FBI warrant authorized them to kill Trump?” Does anybody know what gets you this heightened observation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#55
#55
RockyTop85 said:
I understand the first sentence, the why is to the second sentence.

It seems, if she’s on the list, there are two explanations: she did something to earn her place* or an unknown somebody abused the process. Why is the latter more plausible?

* and this is the same media ecosystem that weaponizes audience ignorance. Remember “they’re not distributing comirnaty so you can’t get compensated for vaccine injuries” and “the FBI warrant authorized them to kill Trump?” Does anybody know what gets you this heightened observation?
Click to expand...
If she’s on the list, I find it more plausible someone abused the process.

That seems more likely than a former member of Congress, presidential candidate, and army officer engaging in terroristic behavior that earned her a place on the list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Vol8188, Vol737 and 2 others
#57
#57
lawgator1 said:
He called for prosecution and Trump extended surveillance measures. So many GOPers seem to support counter terror mechanisms... until there's an opportunity to virtue signal in criticism of it.
Click to expand...
You mean measures like spying on a competitor’s campaign and then continuing to spy well into that competitor’s Presidency? Those kind of extended surveillance measures?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, InVOLuntary and norrislakevol
#58
#58
85SugarVol said:
If she’s on the list, I find it more plausible someone abused the process.

That seems more likely than a former member of Congress, presidential candidate, and army officer engaging in terroristic behavior that earned her a place on the list.
Click to expand...

Nah, she’s the next Bin Laden, it’s apparently apparent, we just don’t see it.
 
#59
#59
85SugarVol said:
If she’s on the list, I find it more plausible someone abused the process.

That seems more likely than a former member of Congress, presidential candidate, and army officer engaging in terroristic behavior that earned her a place on the list.
Click to expand...
But you don’t know earns a spot on the list, right?
 
#62
#62
85SugarVol said:
I think so too.

I was drawn in by @lawgator1 insinuating there could be a legitimate reason for her placement on the list.

I want to hear what he thinks the reason could be.
Click to expand...


I'm in your camp. I doubt she is on the list.

My point is, IF she's in it people ought to fired if it was politically motivated. Naturally, this means we would need to know why she's on it (if she is).

I have absolutely no reason in mind. Certainly, it would be fair to investigate whether politics motivated it. To do so, you'd need to ask why she's on it.

I really don't see why my position on that is meeting with such opposition.
 
#63
#63
RockyTop85 said:
But you don’t know earns a spot on the list, right?
Click to expand...
Apparently “it’s classified”.

What we do know is that it is a terror watch list, compiled by DHS, used to track individuals that may be a threat to the skies over the United States.

Which do you personally find more plausible?

- Someone abused the process
- Tulsi is a terror threat to US skies
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, CobbVol, Vol8188 and 1 other person
#64
#64
lawgator1 said:
I'm in your camp. I doubt she is on the list.

My point is, IF she's in it people ought to fired if it was politically motivated. Naturally, this means we would need to know why she's on it (if she is).

I have absolutely no reason in mind. Certainly, it would be fair to investigate whether politics motivated it. To do so, you'd need to ask why she's on it.

I really don't see why my position on that is meeting with such opposition.
Click to expand...
Do you think it’s possible that Tulsi Gabbard presents a terror risk so grave to US skies that it warrants placement on a Terror Watchlist administered by Department of Homeland Security?
 
#68
#68
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Vol737 and 508mikey
#69
#69
85SugarVol said:
Do you think it’s possible that Tulsi Gabbard presents a terror risk so grave to US skies that it warrants placement on a Terror Watchlist administered by Department of Homeland Security?
Click to expand...


I'm skeptical she's on it. I'm even more skeptical she deserves to be.

But we are all just guessing at the moment.
 
#70
#70
lawgator1 said:
I'm skeptical she's on it. I'm even more skeptical she deserves to be.

But we are all just guessing at the moment.
Click to expand...
Did she not say herself she had been placed on the quiet skies watch list? She must have been informed somehow. Otherwise, how does one know when they’ve been placed on a watch list? And who gets to see the list?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and norrislakevol
#71
#71
lawgator1 said:
I'm skeptical she's on it. I'm even more skeptical she deserves to be.

But we are all just guessing at the moment.
Click to expand...
I guess she could be on it. People do stupid things sometimes. Politics are incredibly partisan right now.

But I cannot imagine a scenario where she deserved to be on a terror watch list.
 
#72
#72
Vol737 said:
Did she not say herself she had been placed on the quiet skies watch list? She must have been informed somehow. Otherwise, how does one know when they’ve been placed on a watch list? And who gets to see the list?
Click to expand...


I doubt people get notice. From what little I've read its coming from an unnamed person. So, not exactly firmed up.

But we'll see.

Have to say, I dont really see the point of it, if it's true. But I don't know all the drawbacks.
85SugarVol said:
I guess she could be on it. People do stupid things sometimes. Politics are incredibly partisan right now.

But I cannot imagine a scenario where she deserved to be on a terror watch list.
Click to expand...


Me either. But that's one reason I'm skeptical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737
#73
#73
lawgator1 said:
I doubt people get notice. From what little I've read its coming from an unnamed person. So, not exactly firmed up.

But we'll see.

Have to say, I dont really see the point of it, if it's true. But I don't know all the drawbacks.



Me either. But that's one reason I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...
Unnamed source with salacious information on Trump:

LG demands it be true and start another impeachment


Unnamed source says Dems did something dirty:

"Its just an unnamed source who I doubt"



But remember he's an Indy now
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL, CobbVol, InVOLuntary and 4 others
#74
#74
85SugarVol said:
Apparently “it’s classified”.

What we do know is that it is a terror watch list, compiled by DHS, used to track individuals that may be a threat to the skies over the United States.

Which do you personally find more plausible?

- Someone abused the process
- Tulsi is a terror threat to US skies
Click to expand...
I disagree that that is “what we do know.” This is not THE no-fly list, obviously, because it’s not A no-fly list. So the criteria are probably less than “a threat to US skies” because if they had evidence of that, they’d put you on THE no-fly list.

Given that, the criteria could be nearly anything. It could be based on some information TSA was passed by outside agencies, like threats against Tulsi Gabbard. It could be auto generated, based on certain travel destinations. More likely, because government, and because it’s not THE no-fly list, it’s probably a number of factors that are actually really terrible at picking targets.

And neither seems more or less plausible.

If you’ve got an axe to grind with somebody, you don’t put them on a non-invasive list that they wouldn’t even know they were on unless it leaks and hurts you. I guess it’s plausible some nobody civil service flunky with bad judgment did it, like the doctored Trump campaign email, but that doesn’t support the narrative that she’s using it to push.

I have no basis to believe she is or is or is not a threat to US skies meets the criteria for being placed on this list, whatever that criteria is. Your list of reasons to trust her didn’t move the needle for me, given the recent examples of Bob Menendez, George Santos(?), and many others.

What I do have a basis for is that right wing media routinely pulls **** like this where they say “omg Tulsi Gabbard is now on a no-fly list” and then it turns out that actually she just flew to Syria or something and got temporarily auto-populated to the list.
 
#75
#75
RockyTop85 said:
I disagree that that is “what we do know.” This is not THE no-fly list, obviously, because it’s not A no-fly list. So the criteria are probably less than “a threat to US skies” because if they had evidence of that, they’d put you on THE no-fly list.

Given that, the criteria could be nearly anything. It could be based on some information TSA was passed by outside agencies, like threats against Tulsi Gabbard. It could be auto generated, based on certain travel destinations. More likely, because government, and because it’s not THE no-fly list, it’s probably a number of factors that are actually really terrible at picking targets.

And neither seems more or less plausible.

If you’ve got an axe to grind with somebody, you don’t put them on a non-invasive list that they wouldn’t even know they were on unless it leaks and hurts you. I guess it’s plausible some nobody civil service flunky with bad judgment did it, like the doctored Trump campaign email, but that doesn’t support the narrative that she’s using it to push.

I have no basis to believe she is or is or is not a threat to US skies meets the criteria for being placed on this list, whatever that criteria is. Your list of reasons to trust her didn’t move the needle for me, given the recent examples of Bob Menendez, George Santos(?), and many others.

What I do have a basis for is that right wing media routinely pulls **** like this where they say “omg Tulsi Gabbard is now on a no-fly list” and then it turns out that actually she just flew to Syria or something and got temporarily auto-populated to the list.
Click to expand...
No, it is not THE no-fly list. It is A fly list though.

And what we do know is that TSA has stated that individuals on THIS list have been upgraded to THE list in the past - so not A list one would likely want to be on (jmo).

Sure, I guess it’s possible DHS could have placed her on this list for her own protection (threats made against her). Though I personally don’t find that very plausible.

If you find it equally plausible that some government boob placed her on THIS list, or she earned her place on this list, that’s obviously your prerogative.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top