Charlie Kirk death 🍾

[cartonfoirix]

Probably a planned hit to make people see that the Palestinian supporting left are indeed violent terrorists and you should certainly stand with Israel

 

[Mansur]

Imagine his daughter finds this video. Brutal

 

[Greypiller]

Pro-Israel Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk shot in the throat during an even in Utah Valley

According to reports he has been declared dead.

The shooter has been apprehended.


View attachment 4101586

ive seen this video 100 times already

 

[forsearches]

over for that jew bumlicker he is in the hands of Allah now

He's been saying stuff on jewish donators and them pushing leftist politics and he got whacked for it I wouldn't call him a zionist anymore he also talked about epstein

 

[forsearches]

Faggot for celebrating this
Making this forum look like lipstick alley

I remember lipstick alley good times

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Why is the “” emoji was necessary ?

He’s happy cos he’s evil he hates Isreal and want it gone and wants all those who support it dead their a race of demonic individuals
Fuck WHYPIPO demons

 

[emeraldglass]

He’s happy cos he’s evil he hates Isreal and want it gone and wants all those who support it dead their a race of demonic individuals
Fuck WHYPIPO demons

That’s not true. I despise Israel, yes, but that doesn’t mean I want every supporter dead. I don’t even want every Israeli dead. I want those guilty of crimes punished accordingly. Any Israeli who stood against this genocide, even if they were few, I have no issue with.

It should be obvious: a nation that snipes children in the head, bombs civilians simply for existing in their homeland, and even targets journalists, aid worker’s etc , is committing atrocities.

Remember they bomb churches as well, this isn’t Islam versus Israel, no matter how much they push that false narrative. It’s Israel versus anyone who dares to oppose them, Muslims, Christians, atheists, or even Jews themselves.

 

[AscensionMan98]

He's in critical condition apparently but I think he's dead.

He's been confirmed dead, if you have. seen gore you can see it was impossible to survive as the life left him instantly you can see him sieze up and die.

They just say that as they have to notify the immediate family first if their in the area or send dispatch to notify the family first before mainstream media does. Its so that families don't have to learn about their family member dying from the news just have a proper death notification

 

[Luquier]

That’s not true. I despise Israel, yes, but that doesn’t mean I want every supporter dead. I don’t even want every Israeli dead. I want those guilty of crimes punished accordingly. Any Israeli who stood against this genocide, even if they were few, I have no issue with.

It should be obvious: a nation that snipes children in the head, bombs civilians simply for existing in their homeland, and even targets journalists, aid worker’s etc , is committing atrocities.

Remember they bomb churches as well, this isn’t Islam versus Israel, no matter how much they push that false narrative. It’s Israel versus anyone who dares to oppose them, Muslims, Christians, atheists, or even Jews themselves.

Exactly. He’s advocating for genocide and is part of a greater Zionist sentiment in the US that is ensuring Gaza’s continued suffering. Obviously people are going to try and kill someone who’s acting to perpetuate real life suffering. He’s not innocent in any way.

 

[emeraldglass]

Exactly. He’s advocating for genocide and is part of a greater Zionist sentiment in the US that is ensuring Gaza’s continued suffering. Obviously people are going to try and kill someone who’s acting to perpetuate real life suffering. He’s not innocent in any way.

That’s exactly why I see this as payback. His words gave more support to the genocide and even normalized it. Just like he said, ‘the Gazans are responsible for their own deaths’, well, motherfucker, now you’re responsible for yours. People can’t stomach the idea that actions have consequences, and they pretend words are meaningless. But words are actions, and they fall under the same standard as any ill faith deed.

 

[anthony111553]

You call it a natural right, but natural rights don’t exist in a vacuum, they’re meaningful only if they don’t destroy others. If speech can justify genocide, your natural right becomes a license for murder. Absolute freedom without limits is not a right; it’s chaos.

Throwing labels doesn’t refute facts. Genocide isn’t a debate over ideology, it’s about human survival. You’re using personal attacks to avoid addressing the logic: words can kill. Name is calling is a shield for someone who can’t defend their principle under scrutiny. I am neither liberal nor conservative fuck them both, contrary to what you think.

aka words hurt me

 

[emeraldglass]

aka words hurt me

Imagine I’m a popular leader and I shout: ‘Tomorrow, let’s kill Anthony because he wore blue jeans and I hate blue jeans.’ The crowd gets fired up, and the next day ten people from that same crowd go and kill Anthony. Anthony is dead. Did the words hurt or not in your opinion?

 

[anthony111553]

Imagine I’m a popular leader and I shout: ‘Tomorrow, let’s kill Anthony because he wore blue jeans and I hate blue jeans.’ The crowd gets fired up, and the next day ten people from that same crowd go and kill Anthony. Anthony is dead. Did the words hurt or not in your opinion?

no, not at all

 

[emeraldglass]

no, not at all

Explain

 

[anthony111553]

Explain

it's called free will, all the people who would commit the killings had this in them. Just how i don't think it's wrong that people encouraged others to storm the us capitol

 

[emeraldglass]

it's called free will, all the people who would commit the killings had this in them. Just how i don't think it's wrong that people encouraged others to storm the us capitol

So by your logic, if a leader says kill this or that, and a mob does it, the leader is innocent because it was ‘already in them’? That’s not free will my bro, that’s manipulation. Free will doesn’t mean people are immune to influence, if it did, propaganda, advertising, cults, and demagogues wouldn’t exist. Yet history is full of graves dug by words.

You even exposed yourself with the Capitol example, you admit people were encouraged. Encouragement is influence, influence is power, and power carries responsibility. Pretending otherwise is mental gymnastics for Charlie boot lickers who don’t want to admit that words can kill.

 

[anthony111553]

So by your logic, if a leader says kill this or that, and a mob does it, the leader is innocent because it was ‘already in them’? That’s not free will my bro, that’s manipulation. Free will doesn’t mean people are immune to influence, if it did, propaganda, advertising, cults, and demagogues wouldn’t exist. Yet history is full of graves dug by words.

You even exposed yourself with the Capitol example, you admit people were encouraged. Encouragement is influence, influence is power, and power carries responsibility. Pretending otherwise is mental gymnastics for Charlie boot lickers who don’t want to admit that words can kill.

words can't kill tho, that's an obvious fact. Manipulation isn't illegal and it never has been.

 

[looksmaxxed]

i support violence, but only for my side. i hope the shooter's family gets raped and killed

 

[emeraldglass]

words can't kill tho, that's an obvious fact. Manipulation isn't illegal and it never has been.

You just contradicted yourself bro. If manipulation doesn’t matter, why do dictators, cult leaders, and propagandists invest so much in speeches, posters, and media? Why do terrorists spread ideology before they strike? Because words do kill bro, they are the spark that ignites action.

Saying words can’t kill is like saying a match can’t burn a house. True, until you drop it in gasoline. History itself proves you wrong.

 

[emeraldglass]

i support violence, but only for my side. i hope the shooter's family gets raped and killed

Hey atleast you’re honest

 

[anthony111553]

You just contradicted yourself bro. If manipulation doesn’t matter, why do dictators, cult leaders, and propagandists invest so much in speeches, posters, and media? Why do terrorists spread ideology before they strike? Because words do kill bro, they are the spark that ignites action.

Saying words can’t kill is like saying a match can’t burn a house. True, until you drop it in gasoline. History itself proves you wrong.

they don't kill, it's the people doing it that are killing. this is pretty simple tbh

 

[emeraldglass]

they don't kill, it's the people doing it that are killing. this is pretty simple tbh

By that logic, the person who orders a hit isn’t guilty, only the hitman is. The general who commands an army to massacre civilians isn’t guilty, only the soldiers are. The cult leader who tells his followers to drink poison is innocent, only the dead are at fault. Stupid reasoning isn’t it.

The people who pull the trigger are guilty, but the one who loaded the gun with words is guilty as well. Simple reality

 

[anthony111553]

By that logic, the person who orders a hit isn’t guilty, only the hitman is. The general who commands an army to massacre civilians isn’t guilty, only the soldiers are. The cult leader who tells his followers to drink poison is innocent, only the dead are at fault. Stupid reasoning isn’t it.

The people who pull the trigger are guilty, but the one who loaded the gun with words is guilty as well. Simple reality

yes in my eyes all those people are innocent

 

[looksmaxxed]

By that logic, the person who orders a hit isn’t guilty, only the hitman is. The general who commands an army to massacre civilians isn’t guilty, only the soldiers are. The cult leader who tells his followers to drink poison is innocent, only the dead are at fault. Stupid reasoning isn’t it.

The people who pull the trigger are guilty, but the one who loaded the gun with words is guilty as well. Simple reality

you think charlie kirk saying men can't be women is equivalent to a general ordering his troops to rape and burn villagers?

 

[anthony111553]

you think charlie kirk saying men can't be women is equivalent to a general ordering his troops to rape and burn villagers?

basically his line of thought is if you insult any people and they end up dead then you killed someone, so basically every single person alive

 

[Deleted member 175289]

Pro-Israel Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk shot in the throat during an even in Utah Valley

According to reports he has been declared dead.

The shooter has been apprehended.


View attachment 4101586

Why did you use the censored version

 

[emeraldglass]

yes in my eyes all those people are innocent

I get the feeling you’re just clinging to any line of thought that contradicts what I said, but all it really does is highlight your stupidity.

you think charlie kirk saying men can't be women is equivalent to a general ordering his troops to rape and burn villagers?

Who even mentioned transsexualism? I’m against that, sure, but right now we’re talking about his enabling of the genocide in Palestine. And honestly, you’re brain dead if you call yourself anti-woke yet defend Kirk while ignoring the fact he takes money from the very people pushing that same wokism.

basically his line of thought is if you insult any people and they end up dead then you killed someone, so basically every single person alive

That’s a complete strawman. I never said insulting someone equals murder. The point is speech that actively incites, organizes, or enables genocide, words that directly lead to mass killings, can function as a weapon. Casual insults, jokes, or disagreements do not qualify.

Saying otherwise is like claiming every person who talks about driving causes all traffic deaths. It’s absurd, exaggerates reality, and ignores intent and causal link.

 

[emeraldglass]

Why did you use the censored version

Was the only video I found at that time

 

[anthony111553]

I get the feeling you’re just clinging to any line of thought that contradicts what I said, but all it really does is highlight your stupidity.

Who even mentioned transsexualism? I’m against that, sure, but right now we’re talking about his enabling of the genocide in Palestine. And honestly, you’re brain dead if you call yourself anti-woke yet defend Kirk while ignoring the fact he takes money from the very people pushing that same wokism.

That’s a complete strawman. I never said insulting someone equals murder. The point is speech that actively incites, organizes, or enables genocide, words that directly lead to mass killings, can function as a weapon. Casual insults, jokes, or disagreements do not qualify.

Saying otherwise is like claiming every person who talks about driving causes all traffic deaths. It’s absurd, exaggerates reality, and ignores intent and causal link.

i mean you can claim that's what im doing but i've always had a harsh stance on free speech.

 

[emeraldglass]

i mean you can claim that's what im doing but i've always had a harsh stance on free speech.

What is it with you people and this bullshit of ‘free speech’? Free speech is just as absurd as someone ranting on ‘freedom of movement.’ You already have free speech, you can say whatever you want when you’re alone. The real term, if anything, should be ‘freedom of expression in public.’ Also both are restricted by higher authorities whenever it suits them, you’re only given enough to keep you compliant. And ranting about it here won’t change a thing. If anything, someone like Kirk was granted more free speech by the authorities because his views aligned with their stance on Israel.

Real free speech is when you align yourself with the truth not when you get paid to propagate something like a parrot owned by a genocide state. That’s called being a puppet with an Israeli hand up your ass.

 

[looksmaxxed]

I get the feeling you’re just clinging to any line of thought that contradicts what I said, but all it really does is highlight your stupidity.

Who even mentioned transsexualism? I’m against that, sure, but right now we’re talking about his enabling of the genocide in Palestine. And honestly, you’re brain dead if you call yourself anti-woke yet defend Kirk while ignoring the fact he takes money from the very people pushing that same wokism.

That’s a complete strawman. I never said insulting someone equals murder. The point is speech that actively incites, organizes, or enables genocide, words that directly lead to mass killings, can function as a weapon. Casual insults, jokes, or disagreements do not qualify.

Saying otherwise is like claiming every person who talks about driving causes all traffic deaths. It’s absurd, exaggerates reality, and ignores intent and causal link.

he's not enabling anything, the conflict will go on whether he supports it or not.

also, i don't care about brown people being genocided, they wouldn't care if whites were being genocided. you're right that he gets paid by jews, but who doesn't?

 

[emeraldglass]

he's not enabling anything, the conflict will go on whether he supports it or not.

He enables it because his support for the genocide fuels more public backing, which in turn reduces pressure on the government to cut ties with the Zionist state. It’s just basic logic, even if you can’t stop the genocide yourself, you shouldn’t be adding more fuel to the fire.

also, i don't care about brown people being genocided, they wouldn't care if whites were being genocided.

First of all, this is a lazy projection, not evidence. Genocide isn’t a team sport, it’s a crime against humanity.

Secondly, history destroys your claim. Indians, Arabs, North Africans, all fought and died defending Europeans in WWII. Bosnian Muslims bled with NATO in the 90s. Palestinians sheltered Jews from Nazi extermination before Israel even existed.

To be honest this just a whataboutism, and a moral dodge. You try to justify apathy by claiming others would also be apathetic. Not even with facts.

you're right that he gets paid by jews, but who doesn't?

So you admit he’s a paid shill for Israel, thanks for proving my point. But your ‘who doesn’t?’ line is weak. Not everyone takes Zionist money, and even if entertaining this hypothetical, that all do, that doesn’t absolve him.

If a murderer says ‘everyone kills,’ it doesn’t suddenly make murder moral. You claim to hate woke and the system, yet defend a guy literally bankrolled by the same machine pushing it. That makes you a useful idiot for the establishment.

Either you’re blind to your own hypocrisy, or you’ve just chosen to lick the boots of the very people you pretend to fight. I hope you ain’t any of these 2.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Pro-Israel Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk shot in the throat during an even in Utah Valley

According to reports he has been declared dead.

The shooter has been apprehended.


View attachment 4101586

Caging

"Charlieeee!"

Who fucking said that

 

[anthony111553]

What is it with you people and this bullshit of ‘free speech’? Free speech is just as absurd as someone ranting on ‘freedom of movement.’ You already have free speech, you can say whatever you want when you’re alone. The real term, if anything, should be ‘freedom of expression in public.’ Also both are restricted by higher authorities whenever it suits them, you’re only given enough to keep you compliant. And ranting about it here won’t change a thing. If anything, someone like Kirk was granted more free speech by the authorities because his views aligned with their stance on Israel.

Real free speech is when you align yourself with the truth not when you get paid to propagate something like a parrot owned by a genocide state. That’s called being a puppet with an Israeli hand up your ass.

that's not free speech at all, so that's the main problem with your line of thought

 

[emeraldglass]

that's not free speech at all, so that's the main problem with your line of thought

You missed my point. Real free speech means siding with the truth, but the moment you do, you get silenced. Meanwhile, if you just spew bullshit under the banner of ‘free speech,’ they let you talk all day. Free speech is useless if it doesn’t serve truth, because then it only serves lies.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

that's not free speech at all, so that's the main problem with your line of thought

Dont know context


but this nigga basically Saying "free speech is saying things I agree with, propaganda is saying things I don't agree with" wtf did I just read

All speech falls under free speech, reguardless of why its being said

Real free speech is when you align yourself with the truth not when you get paid to propagate something like a parrot owned by a genocide state.

 

[anthony111553]

You missed my point. Real free speech means siding with the truth, but the moment you do, you get silenced. Meanwhile, if you just spew bullshit under the banner of ‘free speech,’ they let you talk all day. Free speech is useless if it doesn’t serve truth, because then it only serves lies.

ah yes, so real free speech means siding with what YOU believe to be the truth. glad we cleared that up.

 

[emeraldglass]

Dont know context


but this nigga basically Saying "free speech is saying things I agree with, propaganda is saying things I don't agree with" wtf did I just read

All speech falls under free speech, reguardless of why its being said

You missed my point. Real free speech means siding with the truth, but the moment you do, you get silenced. Meanwhile, if you just spew bullshit under the banner of ‘free speech,’ they let you talk all day. Free speech is useless if it doesn’t serve truth, because then it only serves lies.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

@emeraldglass

So if "truthful" free speech results in being silenced

Charlie Kirk was telling lies while also getting paid by Israel and still got silenced

How do you reconsile this?

 

[emeraldglass]

ah yes, so real free speech means siding with what YOU believe to be the truth. glad we cleared that up.

No, clown, not what I believe, what’s verifiably true. You’re trying the cheap trick of relativism, pretending all speech has equal weight just because it’s spoken. That’s like saying a doctor curing cancer and a drunk hobo claiming bleach cures cancer are the same ‘truths’ because both opened their mouths.

What I’m saying is simple: speech that aligns with reality gets suppressed, while speech that props up power, like Kirk’s pro-genocide parroting, gets amplified. That’s not freedom, that’s controlled opposition.

You hiding behind ‘everyone has their own truth’ is just an excuse to defend lies without admitting it. If your idea of free speech is protecting propaganda bankrolled by a genocide state, congrats, you’ve admitted you’re just a megaphone for whoever pays you. That’s not freedom, that’s being a whore with a Twitter account.

 

[emeraldglass]

@emeraldglass

So if "truthful" free speech results in being silenced

Charlie Kirk was telling lies while also getting paid by Israel and still got silenced

How do you reconsile this?

Who said he got taken out by people with authority?

 

[anthony111553]

No, clown, not what I believe, what’s verifiably true. You’re trying the cheap trick of relativism, pretending all speech has equal weight just because it’s spoken. That’s like saying a doctor curing cancer and a drunk hobo claiming bleach cures cancer are the same ‘truths’ because both opened their mouths.

What I’m saying is simple: speech that aligns with reality gets suppressed, while speech that props up power, like Kirk’s pro-genocide parroting, gets amplified. That’s not freedom, that’s controlled opposition.

You hiding behind ‘everyone has their own truth’ is just an excuse to defend lies without admitting it. If your idea of free speech is protecting propaganda bankrolled by a genocide state, congrats, you’ve admitted you’re just a megaphone for whoever pays you. That’s not freedom, that’s being a whore with a Twitter account.

agreed like when hitler decided that everyone who disagreed with them is a liar

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Who said he got taken out by people with authority?

You think an untrained citizen liberal made a shot from 200 yards with a high powered sniper rifle and escaped without getting caught...?

 

[emeraldglass]

agreed like when hitler decided that everyone who disagreed with them is a liar

Explain further

 

[anthony111553]

Explain further

you call people liars for not viewing the truth the same way as you do

 

[emeraldglass]

You think an untrained citizen liberal made a shot from 200 yards with a high powered sniper rifle and escaped without getting caught...?

Who said he’s untrained? Also his just for now incaught yet. It’s been less than 24 hours. He’s unlikely to disappear permanently. Plus, there’s always the possibility of ex-military or rogue agents involved.

 

[emeraldglass]

you call people liars for not viewing the truth the same way as you do

No, I’m not calling people liars for disagreeing. I’m calling people who knowingly propagate falsehoods while pretending it’s truth liars. There’s a difference between honest disagreement and deliberately amplifying propaganda that kills people. Saying ‘everyone has their own truth’ doesn’t make lies harmless.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Who said he’s untrained? Also his just for now incaught yet. It’s been less than 24 hours. He’s unlikely to disappear permanently. Plus, there’s always the possibility of ex-military or rogue agents involved.

Rogue "agents" putting their life on the line because they are lgbtq tranny lovers

And "ex-military" being liberals

The odds of both of those scenarios is a combined 3%

 

[emeraldglass]

Rogue "agents" putting their life on the line because they are lgbtq tranny lovers

And "ex-military" being liberals

The odds of both of those scenarios is a combined 3%

Jfl, bro you’re literally assigning odds like a Vegas bookie with zero evidence.

Ex-military personnel exist, rogue operators exist, and trained civilians exist, it’s not impossible. Real world variables are at play. You’re not looking at reality objectively. In your mind, none of that matters because it doesn’t fit your narrative. But that’s not how reality should be assessed.

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Jfl, bro you’re literally assigning odds like a Vegas bookie with zero evidence.

Ex-military personnel exist, rogue operators exist, and trained civilians exist, it’s not impossible. Real world variables are at play. You’re not looking at reality objectively. In your mind, none of that matters because it doesn’t fit your narrative. But that’s not how reality should be assessed.

My narrative would be a tranny shooting him because their being mentally ill so we could slander the liberal party

My realistic assessment is said above.