Trump shot at

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Trump shot at

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 23 of 37 < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 16 Jul 24 11.11pm
Interesting development:- [Link] For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 16 Jul 24 11.11pm

Interesting development:-

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 17 Jul 24 5.58am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Interesting development:- [Link] or, could easily be misinformation passed to the media in a timely attempt to muddy the waters I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 17 Jul 24 5.58am

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Interesting development:-

[Link]

or, could easily be misinformation passed to the media in a timely attempt to muddy the waters

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 17 Jul 24 7.35am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Interesting development:- [Link] Yup how did that work out? Interesting that the woke SS chief allowed his detail to include fat and short people. Fat equals not very fit and why does short matter. When they eventually moved Trump from the podium he is taller than some of the people protecting him, a second shooter would have had a clear head shot. Call me old fashion but I like my coppers big fit and honest. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 17 Jul 24 7.35am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Interesting development:-

[Link]

Yup how did that work out?

Interesting that the woke SS chief allowed his detail to include fat and short people. Fat equals not very fit and why does short matter. When they eventually moved Trump from the podium he is taller than some of the people protecting him, a second shooter would have had a clear head shot.

Call me old fashion but I like my coppers big fit and honest.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 24 8.11am
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly or, could easily be misinformation passed to the media in a timely attempt to muddy the waters How can new information muddy the waters? If anything it clarifies them. There was a suggestion made that a request for additional security was denied. A suggestion that was subsequently denied itself. Now we learn that in fact security has been increased due to intelligence reports of a specific threat. Details being given of what the increase included. Reading what is provided it appears very comprehensive to me, as a non expert in such matters. So now we know that far from there being a lack of security there was a great deal. Which doesn’t yet answer the question of what went wrong, let alone why. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (17 Jul 2024 8.40am) For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 24 8.11am

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

or, could easily be misinformation passed to the media in a timely attempt to muddy the waters

How can new information muddy the waters? If anything it clarifies them. There was a suggestion made that a request for additional security was denied. A suggestion that was subsequently denied itself.

Now we learn that in fact security has been increased due to intelligence reports of a specific threat. Details being given of what the increase included. Reading what is provided it appears very comprehensive to me, as a non expert in such matters.

So now we know that far from there being a lack of security there was a great deal. Which doesn’t yet answer the question of what went wrong, let alone why.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (17 Jul 2024 8.40am)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 24 8.39am
Originally posted by Badger11 Yup how did that work out? Interesting that the woke SS chief allowed his detail to include fat and short people. Fat equals not very fit and why does short matter. When they eventually moved Trump from the podium he is taller than some of the people protecting him, a second shooter would have had a clear head shot. Call me old fashion but I like my coppers big fit and honest. So you know exactly which SS “chief” selected the detail, that they were male, “woke” and ought not have included any “fat” or “short” people because Trump is tall? The expertise that exists here never fails to surprise me as does the level of speculation. I instead wonder if those particular people had other duties than simply being human shields. The issues to be considered, from my non expert perspective, are not what happened after he was shot. That would have been prepared for and rehearsed many times. It’s how the shooter was able to get in a position, with a weapon, to shoot in the first place? Secondly why a transparent bullet proof screen is not placed around any high profile potential target? With today’s technology surely that could be accomplished in a way that’s hardly noticeable and with most people actually watching the large screen TVs, unless they are very close, what would be lost? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 24 8.39am

Originally posted by Badger11

Yup how did that work out?

Call me old fashion but I like my coppers big fit and honest.

So you know exactly which SS “chief” selected the detail, that they were male, “woke” and ought not have included any “fat” or “short” people because Trump is tall?

The expertise that exists here never fails to surprise me as does the level of speculation.

I instead wonder if those particular people had other duties than simply being human shields.

The issues to be considered, from my non expert perspective, are not what happened after he was shot. That would have been prepared for and rehearsed many times. It’s how the shooter was able to get in a position, with a weapon, to shoot in the first place?

Secondly why a transparent bullet proof screen is not placed around any high profile potential target? With today’s technology surely that could be accomplished in a way that’s hardly noticeable and with most people actually watching the large screen TVs, unless they are very close, what would be lost?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 17 Jul 24 8.48am
Originally posted by Badger11 Yup how did that work out? Interesting that the woke SS chief allowed his detail to include fat and short people. Fat equals not very fit and why does short matter. When they eventually moved Trump from the podium he is taller than some of the people protecting him, a second shooter would have had a clear head shot. Call me old fashion but I like my coppers big fit and honest. It's the Democrats and their DEI rules. In many cases it puts forward identities over meritocracy and this was an instance of it. I have no reason to doubt the willingness of the women in that detail to put their bodies between the assassin and the target but the height difference between them and the 6'3 Trump was painfully obvious. One of the men wasn't tall enough either. This should be a basic when it comes to protecting a target. People in non woke countries will look at it and shake their heads....Hell, most sensible people everywhere will look at it and shake their heads. But this is what happens wherever social liberalism rules. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

17 Jul 24 8.48am

Originally posted by Badger11

Yup how did that work out?

Call me old fashion but I like my coppers big fit and honest.

It's the Democrats and their DEI rules.

In many cases it puts forward identities over meritocracy and this was an instance of it. I have no reason to doubt the willingness of the women in that detail to put their bodies between the assassin and the target but the height difference between them and the 6'3 Trump was painfully obvious.

One of the men wasn't tall enough either.

This should be a basic when it comes to protecting a target.

People in non woke countries will look at it and shake their heads....Hell, most sensible people everywhere will look at it and shake their heads.

But this is what happens wherever social liberalism rules.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 17 Jul 24 9.05am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle So you know exactly which SS “chief” selected the detail, that they were male, “woke” and ought not have included any “fat” or “short” people because Trump is tall? The expertise that exists here never fails to surprise me as does the level of speculation. I instead wonder if those particular people had other duties than simply being human shields. The issues to be considered, from my non expert perspective, are not what happened after he was shot. That would have been prepared for and rehearsed many times. It’s how the shooter was able to get in a position, with a weapon, to shoot in the first place? Secondly why a transparent bullet proof screen is not placed around any high profile potential target? With today’s technology surely that could be accomplished in a way that’s hardly noticeable and with most people actually watching the large screen TVs, unless they are very close, what would be lost? The Secret Service (odd name) was created to protect the President and other key people. Their sole reason for existence is that role we do not have an equivalent organization. The current chief is on record about promoting diversity and I am fine with that but I have already given you 2 reasons why some of their agents are not up to the job. This is not about their willingness to take a bullet for the "man" but whether they are suitable for that role. You need big fit people to cover the protected target. It maybe that some of those people would be suitable for a smaller target e.g. The President's wife or daughter. Trump is "6 3" men or women they need to be at least the same height. As for you comment about bullet proof screen I agree but this goes into the whole failure of the security arrangements/ The SS chief is now blaming health and safety for why they did not have people on the shooters roof she also blamed the local police and is wrong on both counts. Firstly the sloping roof if it too dangerous to put SS people on it there are other ways to prevent it being used. It is the job of the SS to identify potential security weaknesses and address them. As for the local police this was rural America the SS are responsible for working with LEO's and directing them to their responsibilities. If they had been told to cover the roof and didn't do so then I agree they are at fault, however that does not appear to be the case. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 17 Jul 24 9.05am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

So you know exactly which SS “chief” selected the detail, that they were male, “woke” and ought not have included any “fat” or “short” people because Trump is tall?

The expertise that exists here never fails to surprise me as does the level of speculation.

I instead wonder if those particular people had other duties than simply being human shields.

The Secret Service (odd name) was created to protect the President and other key people. Their sole reason for existence is that role we do not have an equivalent organization.

The current chief is on record about promoting diversity and I am fine with that but I have already given you 2 reasons why some of their agents are not up to the job. This is not about their willingness to take a bullet for the "man" but whether they are suitable for that role. You need big fit people to cover the protected target.

It maybe that some of those people would be suitable for a smaller target e.g. The President's wife or daughter. Trump is "6 3" men or women they need to be at least the same height.

As for you comment about bullet proof screen I agree but this goes into the whole failure of the security arrangements/ The SS chief is now blaming health and safety for why they did not have people on the shooters roof she also blamed the local police and is wrong on both counts.

Firstly the sloping roof if it too dangerous to put SS people on it there are other ways to prevent it being used. It is the job of the SS to identify potential security weaknesses and address them. As for the local police this was rural America the SS are responsible for working with LEO's and directing them to their responsibilities. If they had been told to cover the roof and didn't do so then I agree they are at fault, however that does not appear to be the case.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 17 Jul 24 9.05am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays It's the Democrats and their DEI rules. In many cases it puts forward identities over meritocracy and this was an instance of it. I have no reason to doubt the willingness of the women in that detail to put their bodies between the assassin and the target but the height difference between them and the 6'3 Trump was painfully obvious. One of the men wasn't tall enough either. This should be a basic when it comes to protecting a target. People in non woke countries will look at it and shake their heads....Hell, most sensible people everywhere will look at it and shake their heads. But this is what happens wherever social liberalism rules. It's far removed from the thread but it is an interesting point, albeit slightly off topic. It seems to be ubiquitous these days, ideology taking precedence over logic. One disturbing profession for this to be happening is within the police in this country, let alone the American SS (if true, I've not looked at it myself). I recognise that recruitment may be a problem in general but when you see some of these individuals these days, I can't help but think 'I really hope you do have a taser, or something, and know how to use it' as they look physically incapable of having any impact whatsoever in the instance it 'kicks off'. I always remember walking down from East Croydon train station one Saturday as a teenager to meet some friends and seeing two officers performing a search on some ne'er-do-wells. Both of the officers looked to be in their early 30's, about 6'2"-6'5" and easily 15 stone+ with neither looking 'fat'. I thought to myself 'that's what they probably should look like'. Not many would fancy that fight! Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 17 Jul 24 9.05am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

It's the Democrats and their DEI rules.

One of the men wasn't tall enough either.

This should be a basic when it comes to protecting a target.

People in non woke countries will look at it and shake their heads....Hell, most sensible people everywhere will look at it and shake their heads.

But this is what happens wherever social liberalism rules.

It's far removed from the thread but it is an interesting point, albeit slightly off topic.

It seems to be ubiquitous these days, ideology taking precedence over logic. One disturbing profession for this to be happening is within the police in this country, let alone the American SS (if true, I've not looked at it myself).

I always remember walking down from East Croydon train station one Saturday as a teenager to meet some friends and seeing two officers performing a search on some ne'er-do-wells. Both of the officers looked to be in their early 30's, about 6'2"-6'5" and easily 15 stone+ with neither looking 'fat'. I thought to myself 'that's what they probably should look like'. Not many would fancy that fight!

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 17 Jul 24 9.14am
Originally posted by Nicholas91 It's far removed from the thread but it is an interesting point, albeit slightly off topic. It seems to be ubiquitous these days, ideology taking precedence over logic. One disturbing profession for this to be happening is within the police in this country, let alone the American SS (if true, I've not looked at it myself). I recognise that recruitment may be a problem in general but when you see some of these individuals these days, I can't help but think 'I really hope you do have a taser, or something, and know how to use it' as they look physically incapable of having any impact whatsoever in the instance it 'kicks off'. I always remember walking down from East Croydon train station one Saturday as a teenager to meet some friends and seeing two officers performing a search on some ne'er-do-wells. Both of the officers looked to be in their early 30's, about 6'2"-6'5" and easily 15 stone+ with neither looking 'fat'. I thought to myself 'that's what they probably should look like'. Not many would fancy that fight! A good point. There are always media stories about the increased use of tasers by the police, but so far I have not seen a discussion that included DEI. Is it possible that the increased use is because some officers are not physically capable of handling a situation the old fashion way? I guess politicians are too scared to suggest that a small person may not be the best choice to tackle a big thug in a fight and so is forced to use a Taser where a large man would subdue the aggressor with their physicality. If that is the case I don't have a problem with say women police officers using Tasers but let's be honest about it. The left want DEI but then condemn police for the over use of Tasers. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 17 Jul 24 9.14am

Originally posted by Nicholas91

It's far removed from the thread but it is an interesting point, albeit slightly off topic.

I recognise that recruitment may be a problem in general but when you see some of these individuals these days, I can't help but think 'I really hope you do have a taser, or something, and know how to use it' as they look physically incapable of having any impact whatsoever in the instance it 'kicks off'.

I always remember walking down from East Croydon train station one Saturday as a teenager to meet some friends and seeing two officers performing a search on some ne'er-do-wells. Both of the officers looked to be in their early 30's, about 6'2"-6'5" and easily 15 stone+ with neither looking 'fat'. I thought to myself 'that's what they probably should look like'. Not many would fancy that fight!

A good point.

There are always media stories about the increased use of tasers by the police, but so far I have not seen a discussion that included DEI.

Is it possible that the increased use is because some officers are not physically capable of handling a situation the old fashion way?

I guess politicians are too scared to suggest that a small person may not be the best choice to tackle a big thug in a fight and so is forced to use a Taser where a large man would subdue the aggressor with their physicality.

If that is the case I don't have a problem with say women police officers using Tasers but let's be honest about it. The left want DEI but then condemn police for the over use of Tasers.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 17 Jul 24 9.48am
I think I'm in love. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

17 Jul 24 9.48am

I think I'm in love.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 24 9.58am
Originally posted by Badger11 The Secret Service (odd name) was created to protect the President and other key people. Their sole reason for existence is that role we do not have an equivalent organization. The current chief is on record about promoting diversity and I am fine with that but I have already given you 2 reasons why some of their agents are not up to the job. This is not about their willingness to take a bullet for the "man" but whether they are suitable for that role. You need big fit people to cover the protected target. It maybe that some of those people would be suitable for a smaller target e.g. The President's wife or daughter. Trump is "6 3" men or women they need to be at least the same height. As for you comment about bullet proof screen I agree but this goes into the whole failure of the security arrangements/ The SS chief is now blaming health and safety for why they did not have people on the shooters roof she also blamed the local police and is wrong on both counts. Firstly the sloping roof if it too dangerous to put SS people on it there are other ways to prevent it being used. It is the job of the SS to identify potential security weaknesses and address them. As for the local police this was rural America the SS are responsible for working with LEO's and directing them to their responsibilities. If they had been told to cover the roof and didn't do so then I agree they are at fault, however that does not appear to be the case. I think it’s better to let the trained professionals do their job than for amateurs to second guess decision making. It’s their job to ensure the protection, a lot of which has nothing to do with extracting the protectee after an incident but in spotting dangers before they occur. Short, fat women are just as capable of doing that as any tall man. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 17 Jul 24 9.58am

Originally posted by Badger11

The Secret Service (odd name) was created to protect the President and other key people. Their sole reason for existence is that role we do not have an equivalent organization.

It maybe that some of those people would be suitable for a smaller target e.g. The President's wife or daughter. Trump is "6 3" men or women they need to be at least the same height.

I think it’s better to let the trained professionals do their job than for amateurs to second guess decision making. It’s their job to ensure the protection, a lot of which has nothing to do with extracting the protectee after an incident but in spotting dangers before they occur. Short, fat women are just as capable of doing that as any tall man.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ouzo Dan Behind you 17 Jul 24 10.09am
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan My take on it The security detail is layered with the sniper team scanning an area well beyond the roof, when you hear the first shot you see the sniper lower his rifle to the general direction of the shooter. I personally use a 4-12x50 scope, looking through it you get an increasingly narrow view as you increase the magnification (4x through to 12x) if you're scanning an area say 250+ metres out you probably won't see the shooter however you're not always looking through the scope, snipers, hunters & trackers are all trained to spot changes in colour, camouflage is super effective until you move, the shooter crawling into position should have been enough to give him away. I'm assuming it was a mixture of national guard & Police who were responsible at the range of the shooter. How on earth someone wasn't on the bat phone telling Trumps security detail what was going on is beyond belief. The Secret service would have been prepping that area for weeks & would have identified & secured any potential vantage points to within a mile of the rally. How the f* they missed a ladder 140m out propped up on a building hidden behind a tree is again absolutely scandalous & my gut tells me it was intentionally ignored. Lastly you have the DEI hire taking cover behind Trump when it's literally her job to take a bullet. Whole thing is a s* show. Edited by Ouzo Dan (15 Jul 2024 7.37am) Slight update on my post above, shooter used an Eotech red dot so not as an easy a shot as it would have been through a proper rifle scope. Dan of the Lotus Eaters made a great point in a podcast yesterday about how Crooks was 12 years old when Trump first became president & in that time the Democrats & the Democrat biased media have hammered home the point that Trump is evil & and a threat to the American way of life, this constant assault on Trump through the internet, TV, Schools, Newspapers etc is all by design and is radicalising Children. The mountains are calling & I must go.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ouzo Dan

Behind you 17 Jul 24 10.09am

Originally posted by Ouzo Dan

My take on it

The security detail is layered with the sniper team scanning an area well beyond the roof, when you hear the first shot you see the sniper lower his rifle to the general direction of the shooter.
I personally use a 4-12x50 scope, looking through it you get an increasingly narrow view as you increase the magnification (4x through to 12x) if you're scanning an area say 250+ metres out you probably won't see the shooter however you're not always looking through the scope, snipers, hunters & trackers are all trained to spot changes in colour, camouflage is super effective until you move, the shooter crawling into position should have been enough to give him away.

I'm assuming it was a mixture of national guard & Police who were responsible at the range of the shooter.
How on earth someone wasn't on the bat phone telling Trumps security detail what was going on is beyond belief.

The Secret service would have been prepping that area for weeks & would have identified & secured any potential vantage points to within a mile of the rally.
How the f*** they missed a ladder 140m out propped up on a building hidden behind a tree is again absolutely scandalous & my gut tells me it was intentionally ignored.

Lastly you have the DEI hire taking cover behind Trump when it's literally her job to take a bullet.

Whole thing is a s*** show.

Edited by Ouzo Dan (15 Jul 2024 7.37am)

Slight update on my post above, shooter used an Eotech red dot so not as an easy a shot as it would have been through a proper rifle scope.

Dan of the Lotus Eaters made a great point in a podcast yesterday about how Crooks was 12 years old when Trump first became president & in that time the Democrats & the Democrat biased media have hammered home the point that Trump is evil & and a threat to the American way of life, this constant assault on Trump through the internet, TV, Schools, Newspapers etc is all by design and is radicalising Children.

The mountains are calling & I must go.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 23 of 37 < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Trump shot at

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors