YouTube Shooter Identified As Nasim Aghdam

As it turns out, Tuesday's shooting at YouTube headquarters (which has so far resulted in zero deaths other than that of the shooter, who committed suicide) had nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with blowback to YouTube's demonetization efforts - as many initially feared.

The shooter was identified as Nasim Aghdam who slammed YouTube for purportedly censoring her after she claimed that they demonetized her channels, including an exercise one devoted to exercise videos and another devoted to veganism. Aghdam channeled her anger toward YouTube into a paranoid manifesto published online. She wrote in her purported manifesto: "Be aware! Dictatorship exists in all countries but with different tactics! They only care for personal and short-term profits and do anything to reach their goals even by fooling simple-minded people, hiding the truth, manipulating science and everything, putting public mental and physical health at risk, abusing non-human animals, polluting the environment, destroying family values, promoting materialism and sexual degeneration in the name of freedom and turning people into programmed robots!"

 

 

She identified herself as an Iranian activist as well as an animal rights activist. Shortly after she was identified, photos of her holding signs with anti-YouTube messages were found online and shared.

 

 

Along with her now-deleted Instagram...

 

 

...One now-deleted YouTube page bore anti-YouTube messages.

 

 

She recently published a video ranting about her treatment by YouTube, complaining that they'd deprived her of views. She said the practice was tantamount to censorship. She also maintained a website that remained live late Tuesday evening. It lists five channels for Aghdam.

And driving that point home, she published a video debating whether the US or Iran did more to protect freedom of speech.

 

 

A Facebook artist page she created had more than 1,600 followers according to a cached version from archive.org. The Facebook page contains a trove of videos. They range in subject matter from lighthearted and comical to recipes for helping people eat vegan, as well as her exercise videos.

Contrary to initial reports, ABC said Aghdam wasn't in a relationship with anyone at the facility (so much for those initial suspicions).

She did not have an ID badge, and was carrying a purse. Aghdam was apparently a prolific maker of YouTube videos, maintaining several accounts for videos of different subjects.

Comments

Sy Kloine Bee Tue, 04/03/2018 - 23:28 Permalink

Allahu Akbar!

 

I'd have to agree with this though:

"Be aware! Dictatorship exists in all countries but with different tactics! They only care for personal and short-term profits and do anything to reach their goals even by fooling simple-minded people, hiding the truth, manipulating science and everything, putting public mental and physical health at risk, abusing non-human animals, polluting the environment, destroying family values, promoting materialism and sexual degeneration in the name of freedom and turning people into programmed robots!"

Bubba Rum Das SethPoor Wed, 04/04/2018 - 04:44 Permalink

More than likely a False Flag, due to conflicting evidence & a changing story as the narrative progresses...

1. Police stated that "The shooter was a woman wearing a dark top & a scarf..."
Yet several direct witnesses who witnessed the shooting & were interviewed on T.V., immediately after the incident stated: "Shooter was wearing full body armor and a mask over the face."

2. Police stated that: "The shooter was a woman, found inside the building, upstairs, deceased from a self inflicted gunshot wound."
KTVU Oakland television station stated that "The shooter shot out the locked back doors, went outside & shot herself & died".
Direct witnesses/ YouTube employees told TV news that: "The shooter shot out the back doors of the building & disappeared."

3.Police state that: "The shooting occurred outside, in an open eating area."
Direct witnesses interviewed stated: "The shooting happened inside the building, at a party for employees."

A male employee interviewed on TV who was a direct witness stated that: "The shooter shot a woman maliciously, numerous times, four or five, & that she was dead when the EMT's showed up."

However, San Francisco General stated that: "The woman who was injured in the shooting was in good condition, resulting from a gunshot wound to the leg." Yet the Police claim that: "The only dead woman was the shooter..."

On TV news, a tarp was shown about 25 feet outside the glass back doors that were shot out, (as they described this as being the body of the shooter), covering something & held down w/ two lawn chairs, but there was no blood visible on the concrete (highly unusual for someone dead from a gunshot wound), & whatever the tarp was covering appeared much to large to be a human being from the outline & size of the object under the tarp. Could this be to hide the fact that the actual shooter got away out the back doors?

 

          Very suspicious, indeed...

In reply to by SethPoor

IH8OBAMA PrayingMantis Wed, 04/04/2018 - 10:49 Permalink

Three Points

First, what was with this boyfriend narrative fostered by the press yesterday.  Do they just make up stories now when ever they feel like it?

Second, why no mention of the type of weapon?  Is it because it wasn't an AR-15 and doesn't fit into the LIBERAL narrative?  MSM Assholes!

Third, she looks to have a very tight little mouth!  ;-)

In reply to by PrayingMantis

King of Ruperts Land IH8OBAMA Wed, 04/04/2018 - 11:08 Permalink

IH8OBAMA, I wondered what type of weapon. That is a fact though, and reporting seems to be all narrative these days. I finally found some reporting that said hand gun.

I did find this though:

Thank God YouTube employees have skateboards to flee active shooters.

This reporting from AP:

"Zach Vorhies, 37, a senior software engineer at YouTube, said he was at his desk working on the second floor of one of the buildings when the fire alarm went off.

He got on his skateboard and approached a courtyard, where he saw the shooter yelling, “Come get me.” He said the public can access the courtyard without any security check during working hours.

There was somebody lying nearby on his back with a red stain on his stomach that appeared to be from a bullet wound.

He said he realized it was an active shooter incident when a police officer with an assault rifle came through a security door. He jumped on his skateboard and took off."

In reply to by IH8OBAMA

SantaClaws Bubba Rum Das Wed, 04/04/2018 - 17:08 Permalink

" Very suspicious, indeed... "

Not really.  This is California, remember.  Everyone is stoned, all the time.  Everyone.

And those in high-tech land use micro-doses of LSD for work stimulants.  Wonder why the Google and FB policies only make sense if you're stoned?  Probably can't get the stuff out of the drinking water even with a water filter.

In reply to by Bubba Rum Das

HenryKissinger… SethPoor Wed, 04/04/2018 - 04:49 Permalink

so youtube "demonetized" (aka. FÜCKED) millions of content creators (even their #1 PewDiePie), because "Hillary lost" or some progressive reasoning...
and ONLY ONE has looked for vengeance? ONLY ONE?

I would start fearing each and every mailman, pizza delivery biker, cleaning lady, and anyone with a shitty job working for/at youtube... tons of copycats expected fightclubwise

Clearly people flagged/demonetized by twitter/fakebook/skynetgoogleyoutube must immediately get their guns CONFISCATED, as well as butter knives, bats, soap, chopsticks, boxcutters, cars and axes

In reply to by SethPoor

PT effendi Wed, 04/04/2018 - 05:00 Permalink

In my life I have noticed some vegans are extremely highly strung.

But when someone steals your means of making an income, you do tend to become quite stressed.

("Steals"?  Why does YouTube owe anyone anything?  Back to my old question, why don't a billion people OWN their own "YouTube"?  Why is the whole system designed to rely on the generosity of complete strangers who live thousands of miles away and are entitled to change their mind at any instance and for any reason?)

In reply to by effendi

withglee JimmyJones Wed, 04/04/2018 - 13:47 Permalink

" All meaningfull laws regarding predatory trade practices are ignored and no longer enforced. "

When Bezos was trying to sell used books out of his garage over the internet, was he up against predator trade practices from Border's books, Powells in Portland, and others? Was Henry Ford?

I'm getting real sick of laws when simple principles work just fine. If you beat the crap out of the competition, it's the competition's fault, not yours.

 

In reply to by JimmyJones

withglee King of Ruperts Land Wed, 04/04/2018 - 13:41 Permalink

" The infrastructure already exists in the public's hands. The people own a huge aggregate computing and storage capacity and the telecoms are regulated. "Net Neutrality" only needs to mean that upload speeds are as good as download speeds and that the local network is not metered. "

Seems to me "neutrality" should mean "you pay for what you use". To each according to his wallet ... from each according to their wallet.

In reply to by King of Ruperts Land

Sanity Bear PT Wed, 04/04/2018 - 08:04 Permalink

> Why does YouTube owe anyone anything?

Because they encouraged people to set up their businesses there under the false pretense that it would not be a hotbed of left-wing and corporate political censorship.

I remember everyone here cheered for Joe Stack, and with good reason.

In reply to by PT