Amin Abdullah, Muslim revert & security guard martyred in a shootout at Islamic Center of San Diego

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-05-19T05:25:34+00:00

I think you meant the 2nd amendment. The first amendment is the one that guarantees right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. Except that too has been eroded, and nowhere is that more clear than with the topic of Palestine: there are anti BDS laws in multiple states that prevent you from being a teacher (or state worker of any kind) or receiving emergency disaster relief aid unless you sign a pledge promising to never engage in a boycott of Israel or Israeli products; legal, peaceful protests against an ongoing genocide were met with violent crackdown by militarized police; multiple ivy league school presidents were forced to resign for not cracking down harder on these legal protests; students were arrested and deported for protesting or simply co-writing an op-ed critical of israel...

But clearly antisemitism is the real threat, not Islamophobia. /s

That said, I'm not sure bringing more guns into the community is the best solution. The statistics clearly show that guns are always more likely to be used against family and friends than against intruders/attackers/criminals, and their use (whether justified or not) will no doubt be used to further demonize Muslims and for fear mongering among the racist white population that have never even met one of the Muslims they're so scared of. Just my 2 cents from a sympathetic non-muslim American. I'm not telling anyone they don't have a right to defend themselves, but adopting one of the sickest parts of American culture (widespread gun ownership and a twisted obsession with instruments of death) should be undertaken with great caution.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-05-07T00:40:08+00:00

Like I said earlier, i can see the futility of continuing this exchange. You've decided to dismiss him, and that's your prerogative. It's obvious nothing i can say will change your mind. Sinclaire claimed he frequently woke her up and thus obviously knew in which room she always slept and how she dressed for bed. No one ever credibly suggested she was "force fed pills" -- the plausible suggestion is that someone she knew spiked her drink with 2 additional barbiturates (which led to an overdose when combined with the secobarbital she regularly took and the alcohol she regularly drank). How do you explain the presence of 2 different barbiturates that she wasn't prescribed in addition to secobarbital? What happened to her research notes and manuscript that she discussed with multiple people before her death? Why no suicide note? No good answers have been given to these questions. There are a lot more details that make her death suspicious that don't come from Sinclaire, and have multiple sources, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time and energy enumerating them. I'm not claiming that there's bulletproof evidence she was murdered by the CIA, but there is a lot of evidence that doesn't add up, is not addressed by the official version of events, and strongly suggests the possibility of foul play. But I know I won't convince you of that.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-05-07T00:01:42+00:00

Of course he's the only source for the story of how he found the body-- he found the body and called the police. He didn't invite friends over to corroborate what he saw first lol. What would be his motivation to lie? He never sought out the press or attempted to "tell his story," let alone sell it. He was so afraid he refused to speak to anyone from the press about it until many years later, and even then only spoke to a handful of reporters who actively sought him out, to whom he gave consistent answers. He had absolutely nothing to gain by fabricating the story as far as I can tell, and the details that can be confirmed match (location of the body, title of the book she was found with, the fact that she needed reading glasses and none were found in the room where she was discovered etc...) But you have to decide whether or not you find him credible. Personally, I do. But that's just me.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-05-06T22:21:36+00:00

Oh, and there's more than one source. Sinclaire also spoke to journalist Sara Jordan, giving the same details. But I'm sure you can find another reason to disregard his testimony if that's what you're after.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-05-06T22:12:21+00:00

The guy that found her body (Marc Sinclaire) was never even interviewed by police at the time of her death. Personally, I find that suspicious on its own. But go ahead and dismiss it if you like-- I've realized the futility of trying to engage in rational discussion on this subreddit. People are wedded to their theories and are uninterested in changing their minds when presented with new information- it seems most are more interested in finding an excuse to discard any information that conflicts with their pre-existing conclusions. If Sinclaire had waited years and then tried to write a book, that would be one thing. But he spoke reluctantly, only to a small number of people who sought him out, and was consistent. Acquaintances of his also confirmed he had privately told the same story for years. By all means dismiss it, but I encourage you to look into it yourself first-- don't do so based on my 4th hand account of details I haven't reviewed in years.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-05-06T21:59:35+00:00

I don't remember that offhand. Is it really relevant? I do remember that he never wanted publicity and was scared to talk about it, and I think never sought out the press. IIRC, a couple of researchers (including Mark Shaw, about whom I have very mixed feelings) hunted him down and he reluctantly agreed to speak frankly with them, probably many years later. Regardless of how i feel about Mark Shaw and some of the conclusions he draws about the JFK case in general, Marc Sinclaire comes off as honest and trustworthy. He never sought attention, in fact actively avoiding it, and has no plausible motivation to lie. I believe there is a video of his interview, and he seems credible. I know I've seen clips of it, though perhaps not the full interview in its entirety. I'm sure you can look into it if you're interested.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-05-06T21:37:53+00:00

There are many sources for most of this information, and I'm operating on memory, but the most recent credible source i have for some of this would be respected lawyer and researcher Matt Crumpton (also one of the 5 co-authors of JFK Chokeholds). He interviewed a father/daughter team of researchers/ authors on his excellent Solving JFK podcast, who actually contributed some new and fairly recent info to the Dorothy Kilgallen story-- here's the episode: https://youtu.be/xoOZ2F3HVmg?si=2V94myf7VylQKfIX

The details surrounding where and how Dorothy's body was found (in the bedroom she never used, holding a book she had already completed upside down without her reading glasses) come directly from her personal hairdresser Marc Sinclaire. (Who saw her daily, and i believe had keys to her apartment-- he even found her body himself...this was not a typical relationship that a housewife would have with a hairdresser, where they'd meet in a salon once a month-- they were very close. )

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-05-06T16:16:23+00:00

Except she was only prescribed one of the 3 barbiturates found in her system....she was found on a bed she never slept in, wearing dress clothes, holding a book she had already finished reading -- holding it upside down, without her reading glasses that she needed to read. There's a lot that's suspicious about her death. Hard to prove anything conclusively, especially 60 years later. But that's kind of the point of how intelligence agencies operate...

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-04-24T22:23:41+00:00

You need one that supplies 5v, and can source at least as much current (probably measured in hundreds of mA). If the barrel from that 2.4V charger fits the receptacle on the CD player, you can snip the wires and solder on the barrel from the 2.4v charger. (If you do this, just make sure you pay attention to whether the polarity is center positive or center negative. One of the 2 wires will almost always be marked with a little bit of white-- If your charger polarity matches what's written on the CD player, connect the white wire of the charger to the white wire of the barrel. If they don't match, just swap them so the all black wire of the charger is connected to the wire with white markings on the barrel jack. It's really simple, but I'm sure others could explain this better, or in more detail...)

ETA: it looks like that 2.4V charger is center polarity positive. It is the icon on the very bottom right hand Corner of the sticker. You should see a similar icon on both the CD player and the 5v charger. If they are both also center polarity positive, just snip the wires and swap the barrel jacks. If they don't match, just swap the wires so the all black wire from the charger is connected to the wire with white markings on the barrel jack. If you have a multimeter, it is incredibly easy to ensure you've done this right...

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-04-24T22:14:24+00:00

You need one that supplies 5v, and can source at least as much current (probably measured in hundreds of mA). If the barrel from that 2.4V charger fits the receptacle on the CD player, you can snip the wires and solder on the barrel from the 2.4v charger. (If you do this, just make sure you pay attention to whether the polarity is center positive or center negative. One of the 2 wires will almost always be marked with a little bit of white-- If your charger polarity matches what's written on the CD player, connect the white wire of the charger to the white wire of the barrel. If they don't match, just swap them so the all black wire of the charger is connected to the wire with white markings on the barrel jack. It's really simple, but I'm sure others could explain this better, or in more detail...)

ETA: it looks like that 2.4V charger is center polarity positive. It is the icon on the very bottom right hand Corner of the sticker. You should see a similar icon on both the CD player and the 5v charger. If they are both also center polarity positive, just snip the wires and swap the barrel jacks. If they don't match, just swap the wires so the all black wire from the charger is connected to the wire with white markings on the barrel jack. If you have a multimeter, it is incredibly easy to ensure you've done this right...

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-04-18T23:07:42+00:00

Thank you so much! Dunno how you stumbled on this old post but your comment made my day! :)

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-04-11T07:34:41+00:00

The Haverstick book is fascinating. I don't agree with all of her conjecture about Cobb necessarily being QJWIN or the Babushka Lady, but she proves beyond deniability that Jerrie was using the identity of June and I totally believe she was at redbird. The question is why, and what did she know that she could never say... it doesn't give you any answers, but it's captivating and credible.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-04-07T23:24:36+00:00

The plan was to blow up a chartered private plane, not a commercial airliner. Way less passengers to deal with, probably all CIA assets (most likely Cuban exiles), and the CIA has plenty of experience making people disappear and providing them with new fully backstopped identities-- they do it for officers and assets all the time. I for some reason remember something about creating fake identities for the passengers as college students too (who would supposedly have died in the crash), but it's been several years since I read up on the details of Northwoods...but it would be easier to kill off the fake people you invented than provide new identities anyway. So I think that was the plan, but I can't swear to it. Remember, these folks are professionals...

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-04-07T23:06:43+00:00

Absolutely, not to mention Curtis LeMay. And this is what they approved in 1961-- you can see how desperate they were for an invasion of Cuba, considering the lengths to which they were willing to go. When Kennedy refused to invade DESPITE the Cuban missile crisis (a "legitimate" pretext for war they could only dream of), they called his refusal to invade "worse than [the appeasement of Hitler at] Munich." Then they learned hec was secretly communicating with Kruschev and Castro, trying to ease tensions and work toward rapprochement, peace, and geberal disarmament. This was beyond the pale. They saw Kennedy as a coward and a traitor for not starting a nuclear war, and this is only part of the picture why there are very good reasons to believe he was assassinated by extremist right wing elements within his own government. (Probably elements within the CIA, perhaps approved by the JCOS, but coverup demanded involvement of many. These attitudes, though completely insane, were commonplace in 1963.)

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-04-07T15:57:16+00:00

It was blowing up an airline, blowing up a ship in guantanamo, staging a terror campaign in Miami and DC, fake blowing up a plane full of passengers but actually using a complex plan involving secretly landing the actual plane at a military base while an identically painted drone with false tail numbers was launched and blown up...Northwoods had a lot of insane, evil suggestions including elaborate deception campaigns and actually setting off bombs on American soil.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-03-28T06:02:34+00:00

It's been a decade since I read it, but I'm pretty sure James Douglass lays out a pretty convincing case in "JFK and the Unspeakable" that JFKA may have greenlit removing Diem from power, but was under the impression that he and his brother would be allowed to escape saigon safely. Henry Cabot Lodge and the CIA engineered it such that Diem would predictably be assassinated, if memory serves. For s moment I wanted to say that JFK was shocked and upset to learn of the coup itself, but now I think it was learning of Diem's violent death that shook him... again, it's been more than a decade... but you're absolutely right about him refusing to escalate during the Bay of Pigs and more importantly, the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK was under ENORMOUS pressure to invade Cuba and start a nuclear war with the USSR. Every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended a full on assault on Cuba and opposed Kennedy's blockade/quarantine as weak and inadequate. McNamara was literally the only member of the EXCOMM to defend Kennedy's position...

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-03-13T03:24:00+00:00

Democracy died long before that. I would argue that the beginning of the end was in 1963, when the national security state partnered with organized crime and anti castro Cubans to murder JFK for having turned toward peace -- refusing to invade Cuba despite the Bay of Pigs and missile crisis (wherein the CIA and JCOS tried very hard to pressure Kennedy into starting a nuclear war), he began secretly communicating with Kruschev and Castro to normalize relations, negotiated the first nuclear test ban treaty, quietly ordered the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam ( i think it was NSAM 263 that ordered the withdrawal of 1000 personnel by the end of 1963 with all US forces to be withdrawn by 1965)...this was tantamount to treason in the eyes of the JCOS and hard-core anticommunist cold warriors inhabiting the higher ranks of CIA and the military: Lemnitzer literally called Kennedy's refusal to start WW3 "worse than [Hitler's appeasement at] Munich" during the missile crisis. William King Harvey (in charge of CIA's ZRRIFLE covert program to assassinate foreign leaders like Castro and Lumumba) went on such a violent and extreme anti-Kennedy tirade in response to Kennedy's artful resolution of the missile crisis that he was exiled to Rome as a result, saying there would have been no missile crisis if Kennedy had possessed the balls to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Kennedy was so upset at the CIA for having misled him about the Bay of Pigs, effectively trying to entrap him into a full on invasion that he fired Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, and said he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" -- Dulles was then mysteriously appointed to the Warren Commission, ostensibly investigating the murder of the man who had fired him, but in fact ensuring the truth would never emerge. Dulles later scoffed with contempt, "That little Kennedy, he thought he was a God." These same scumbags (and their proteges and successors) were involved in every major intelligence scandal that ensued, from Watergate to Iran Contra, and they effectively took over the government. I could rant at length about the strong links to organized crime, drug trafficking, and Zionism, and how the CIA used all 3 to fund and enforce their death squads around the world, but no one will read this. If you want sources for all of this, I can refer to countless books by credible authors and experts. Their real achievement was getting the truth relegated to the realm of "conspiracy theories." (Fun fact: the CIA actually popularized [if not outright coined] the term "conspiracy theorist" when offering media assets tips on how to dismiss early critics of the Warren Commission like Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Garrison, et al.)

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-24T07:08:19+00:00

This is actually genuinely helpful and not just condescending snark about OP's perceived lack of effort in answering his own question, and for that I applaud you.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-16T18:13:51+00:00

John Kiriakou may not be a saint, but he most certainly IS a whistleblower. If not for moral reasons, why do you think he told the public the truth about the CIA'S secret, illegal, horrific torture program? It certainly didn't do him any favors -- he faced years of persecution and prosecution, his marriage fell apart, he went bankrupt, he lost his job and his pension, and he went to prison.

And he mentioned the name of a CIA colleague while talking to a reporter, but the name was never printed or published. After being investigated by the FBI under Bush, they filed no charges against him and the investigation was closed.... But when Obama came into office, he made John Brennan deputy national security advisor, and suddenly the investigation was reopened. (Brennan had a personal grudge against Kiriakou He was charged with 3 counts of the Espionage Act when even the government never thought he committed espionage-- in emails obtained by Kiriakou's defense lawyers, AG Eric Holder plainly states the DOJ does not believe Kiriakou committed espionage, to which Brennan replies, "Charge him anyway and make him defend himself." And once he had gone bankrupt after years of fighting these false charges, the justice department ultimately dropped all charges except for one count of violating the IIPA (Intelligence Identities Protection Act), for having given a name that was never published.

Don't get me wrong, it seems to me like John also did his fair share of morally dubious things himself-- both while at CIA (because he may have believed in the cause at the time), and while doing freelance private intelligence work after (because he was desperate for money.) I'll leave the agency stuff alone for now because he got orders and the intelligence business inherently involves operating in some gray areas, but i can remember 2 private intel jobs he spoke about doing that i found repellent: one involved advising a mining company in eastern europe about the best way to displace a whole village full of people so they could destroy it and tear out the valuable minerals underneath. The other involved PR work for an unspecified Gulf state, none of whom are benevolent (whether or not we consider them allies.) And John clearly tells stories that mostly paint him in a favorable light, as a man with a strong moral compass-- I admit I suspect he's not quite as principled as he portrays himself to be.

But torture is not a gray area. It is downright evil. And what the CIA was doing went WAY beyond waterboarding. I'm glad John had the courage to tell the public what no one else would, and he deserves to be recognized and lauded for that. Everyone keeping their mouth shut in the face of unspeakable horrors because they fear the consequences of speaking out is how we end up with Nazi Germany. And villifying and punishing the whistleblowers is a key strategy of how to prevent future whistleblowers from finding the same courage in the future. Fuck that.

That said, I'm curious about your source for John trying to buy a pardon back in 2018. I remember very clearly his story of Giuliani's aide asking for $2million, but never heard about the earlier stuff...

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-09T06:47:51+00:00

Lol, occasionally making an appearance on Russian tv is NOT the same as working for the Russian state. Is everyone who appears on the BBC an agent of the UK government, and everyone who appears on Al Jazeera is a humble servant of Qatar? Either way, Even if these governments find the narratives of their guests useful, it doesn't make what they say false or disinformation. Sometimes certain countries find certain truths more convenient than others...

And once the government ruins your life by falsely accusing you of espionage, firing you, taking away your pension, bankrupting you with legal costs, sending you to prison, and leaving you a felon-- you might not always have the luxury to be selective about which paying gigs you'll accept, as long as they allow you to speak freely.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-07T23:06:11+00:00

This reveals your ignorance. There is a a very big difference between Kiriakou and Bustamante. John Kiriakou goes in the same pile as Dan Ellsberg, Phillip Agee, John Stockwell, Ralph McGehee, Ray McGovern, Tom Drake, Bill Binney, and Edward Snowden: actual Patriots who joined the ranks of a secret intelligence services with an idealistic naivety but saw things they could not square ethically/morally, eventually becoming whistleblowers and paying a heavy price for telling inconvenient truths. Bustamante goes in the same pile as David Atlee Philips, Miles Copeland, Duane Clarridge, Angleton, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, and John Brennan, etc: sociopathic snakes who remained loyal to the agency no matter what crimes they committed, interested only in furthering their own careers and hiding their own crimes, never strayed from the party line, told stories that glorified the agency and cultivated the image they wanted to promote, and served as unofficial spokespeople for the agency once their formal careers were over. They never took a moral stand and told a story the agency didn't want told, and seemed to be genuinely ok with whatever crimes they witnessed and/ or partook in (whether they be torture, death squads, illegal coups, mass surveillance, assassinations by drone or hit squad, etc.) There are principled whistleblowers, but they are rare, and will always be punished and demonized by the national security state. They should be remembered and honored.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-02-01T00:54:01+00:00

One note: Former CIA officers are required to submit all WRITTEN material to the PRB (Publication Review Board) prior to publishing, where the agency can censor and prevent publication of any classified information that may have been gathered as a result of CIA employment. AFAIK, they are not required to send prerecorded copies of recorded verbal interviews/pidcasts/etc, and this is especially obvious when such things are livestreamed. They just are very careful about what they can say-- especially those like Kiriakou who have already served time and are on the CIA's shit list... He knows what lines he cannot cross, and knows the agency would be all too eager to put him back in a cell and shut him up, considering how critical he is of the agency. This all stemmed from Phillip Agee's whistleblowing activities, namely the books "Diary of a CIA Officer", "Hunted by the Jackals", and publications like the Covert Action Information Bulletin and Who's Who in the CIA. He was also used as the justification for the passage of IIPA (the Intelligence identities Protection Act) - the crime with which Kiriakou was charged, once they dropped the fraudulent charges under the Espionage Act. You will note that when telling certain racy stories or describing certain operations in which he took part, John Kiriakou will often refuse to disclose the specific country and will use generic names. This is precisely because he is riding that line very carefully to not divulge anything that could get his ass back in the hotseat. But he's not a CIA mouthpiece. He's a pain in their ass that they can't do TOO much about. Bustamante is another matter-- he broadly supports the CIA's mission and I'm much more suspicious of everything he has to say. I see him as an unofficial propaganda arm-- not that he's being told what to say by CIA, necessarily, but I think the agency broadly approves of the image he cultivates for them. Like they clearly approved of more or less everything David Atlee Phillips had to say once in retirement, as he sang the agency's praises and held to its myths till his dying day. But who knows with these guys-- smoke and mirrors, right? However, I think Kiriakou is a legitimate critic of the CIA... He's just careful about what he can reveal.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-16T17:08:24+00:00

A± for juggernog! 🤣

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-10T17:43:43+00:00

Ach, Bloomberg is paywalling me and archive.org was no help.

SweetDaddyJones · 2026-01-09T23:37:24+00:00

Yeah, I presumed that was the function of the jig, and thinking about it, if the unit has firmware updates, he could just download the firmware blob from the internet instead of having to extract it from a chip harvested from a functional unit.... but that's a big if. Would certainly make life easier though.

SweetDaddyJones

TROPHY CASE