Ian Carroll could have phrased that a whole lot better, but he's correct.
The left owns this in large part, due to their reaction, no matter who killed Charlie. We shouldn't let them walk away from that. But a bunch of shitty opportunists are also pretending to speak for Charlie Kirk, and Posobiec is one of those shitters.
Charlie Kirk was TPUSA. TPUSA without Charlie is a skinsuit, and I'm deeply suspicious of people trying to prop them up.
Charlie Kirk's corpse is being used as a football by insane idealogues, and I hate it.
It's also very factional. When that guy tags Candace Owens and Ian Carroll...I'm just surprised they didn't also throw Tucker and some others in there. It's the anti-Zionist side, clearly.
Again, Ian Carroll's response wasn't the best, and I see how it's getting spun how it is, but it's also clear why he's being targeted. It's not because he's a groyper. He's not. It's not because he's a leftist. He's not. It's because he dares to think the wrong thing on a certain specific issue. Just like how Candace, Tucker, Megan Kelly, MTG, and more are conveniently smeared as the worst people ever. There's things to find fault with all those people over...but it's clear why they're being singled out for propaganda.
How should Ian have worded it better? How do you know what he intended to say if it is not what he said? You guys (including Trevor on the opposite side) are reading a ton of context into the tweet that isn't there.
What are you going to do, shoot them? No, you’re just going to keep talking. They’ve already won. They know what happens when you talk. They’re not afraid.
One of their tells is that they leave Info Wars off their shit list despite Harrison Smith planting the seeds of the "Israel killed Charlie Kirk" narrative months ago. Another is smearing everyone as a groyper, including Candace Owens who has feuded with Fuentes.
You're right. I disagree because I'm uncertain but I agree with him by saying they are spinning narratives and its doubtful it's just leftist violence and more likely involves a conspiracy.
I think where he loses people is when he tries to shield violent leftists, as if they cant be used to kill people or like they havent already killed people for political disagreements
Tyler Robinson most definitely didn't kill Charlie Kirk. The campus was covered in security cameras and if he did we would have seen footage by now that would prove it.
But instead we only got one still frame we don't even know when it is even from and cut video footage of someone running away and jumping off the roof without a rifle from a camera that was covering the shooting position and would've most definitely filmed the supposed roof assassin taking the shot. And climbing onto the roof, assembling the gun, disassembling the gun and going into a sprint. But we haven't seen any of that yet.
Add to that all the other inconsistencies and it is guaranteed that Tyler did not kill Charlie.
Only thing I'll disagree with here is that we don't know if Tyler Robinson killed Kirk or not, but because no of the other "evidence" you mention has been released, it's not unreasonable to assume that they don't actually have it.
I saw this recent video of the guy who questioned kirk last, practicing his look of shock and horror before the event. Then doing the exact same action as charlie was shot. Crisis actor is what they called him.
Why would you have seen footage of it? The college doesn't want to advertise how easy it is walk onto campus, climb onto their roofs with a gun, assassinate somebody and then escape the scene.
Prosecutors never show their evidence to the public unless they are corrupt and trying to do politics.
The only way you'd have seen more of this footage is if somebody hacked into the college and stole it in the week or whatever that they store old camera footage or he happened to be in some random selfie video a student was taking and they realized it and shared it.
Ian Carrol is a groyper? And I think that reply isnt in great taste, but the official narrative is a fucking joke
Seeing all of his pro-fuentes tweets, I would say yeah, he is a groyper.
No. Hes talking about magical Trevor. Ian carroll is based af.
What? OP is calling Ian a groyper
I read it as him calling magical Trevor the one protecting people but you may be right maybe op is just a faggot and im giving him too much credit
Ian Carroll could have phrased that a whole lot better, but he's correct.
The left owns this in large part, due to their reaction, no matter who killed Charlie. We shouldn't let them walk away from that. But a bunch of shitty opportunists are also pretending to speak for Charlie Kirk, and Posobiec is one of those shitters.
Charlie Kirk was TPUSA. TPUSA without Charlie is a skinsuit, and I'm deeply suspicious of people trying to prop them up.
Charlie Kirk's corpse is being used as a football by insane idealogues, and I hate it.
It's also very factional. When that guy tags Candace Owens and Ian Carroll...I'm just surprised they didn't also throw Tucker and some others in there. It's the anti-Zionist side, clearly.
Again, Ian Carroll's response wasn't the best, and I see how it's getting spun how it is, but it's also clear why he's being targeted. It's not because he's a groyper. He's not. It's not because he's a leftist. He's not. It's because he dares to think the wrong thing on a certain specific issue. Just like how Candace, Tucker, Megan Kelly, MTG, and more are conveniently smeared as the worst people ever. There's things to find fault with all those people over...but it's clear why they're being singled out for propaganda.
Well said, you've encapsulated my thoughts better than I could.
How should Ian have worded it better? How do you know what he intended to say if it is not what he said? You guys (including Trevor on the opposite side) are reading a ton of context into the tweet that isn't there.
What are you going to do, shoot them? No, you’re just going to keep talking. They’ve already won. They know what happens when you talk. They’re not afraid.
One of their tells is that they leave Info Wars off their shit list despite Harrison Smith planting the seeds of the "Israel killed Charlie Kirk" narrative months ago. Another is smearing everyone as a groyper, including Candace Owens who has feuded with Fuentes.
After tpusa confirming Candace's messages from the late Charlie kirk its pretty damning evidence of some (((extra curricular activity))).
I'm with ian carroll on this one.
Cause why? Violent leftists wouldnt kill people or even be made use of to kill people
What? Violent proggolems are clearly a problem. Maybe even used one to finish the Charlie kirk hit.
So a violent leftist did kill charlie?
Idk who pulled the trigger.
So you disagree with ian definitively saying it wasnt a violent leftist
You're right. I disagree because I'm uncertain but I agree with him by saying they are spinning narratives and its doubtful it's just leftist violence and more likely involves a conspiracy.
I think where he loses people is when he tries to shield violent leftists, as if they cant be used to kill people or like they havent already killed people for political disagreements
So… it was a violent leftist; got it.
Tyler Robinson most definitely didn't kill Charlie Kirk. The campus was covered in security cameras and if he did we would have seen footage by now that would prove it.
But instead we only got one still frame we don't even know when it is even from and cut video footage of someone running away and jumping off the roof without a rifle from a camera that was covering the shooting position and would've most definitely filmed the supposed roof assassin taking the shot. And climbing onto the roof, assembling the gun, disassembling the gun and going into a sprint. But we haven't seen any of that yet.
Add to that all the other inconsistencies and it is guaranteed that Tyler did not kill Charlie.
Only thing I'll disagree with here is that we don't know if Tyler Robinson killed Kirk or not, but because no of the other "evidence" you mention has been released, it's not unreasonable to assume that they don't actually have it.
I saw this recent video of the guy who questioned kirk last, practicing his look of shock and horror before the event. Then doing the exact same action as charlie was shot. Crisis actor is what they called him.
Why would you have seen footage of it? The college doesn't want to advertise how easy it is walk onto campus, climb onto their roofs with a gun, assassinate somebody and then escape the scene.
Prosecutors never show their evidence to the public unless they are corrupt and trying to do politics.
The only way you'd have seen more of this footage is if somebody hacked into the college and stole it in the week or whatever that they store old camera footage or he happened to be in some random selfie video a student was taking and they realized it and shared it.
They're useful idiots and would be purged in the first round of Red Terror. Remember the roots of Antifa.
Israel killed Charlie Kirk and Christians are running cover for them
By definition, no, they’re not.
But I thought everyone loves magical trevor.
The trick that he does are ever so clever.
Look at him now, disappearing a cow.
Where is the cow? Hidden right now.
[edit for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au3-hk-pXsM ]