So is this a false flag?
Lets take a look.
The elements of the narrative and surrounding context:
A marine commits a mass shooting supposedly.
"arguably white"
during a time the u.s. and congress wants to distract from the murder of 13 servicemen.
a baby was murdered.
others were murdered
he wore body armor
the u.s. is heading toward some sort of large civil strife, and both the left and right agree on this.
deputies engaged in a shootout in the building with the marine.
none of the deputies were injured somehow.
glowsticks were already laid out. an element of the bizarre here.
So lets break it down a little.
Here is a guy, supposedly according to the lying press, "talking to god".
Not hard to find a marine that might have screws loose. Not hard to put words in the mouth
of a man thats been framed either, but lets hold off on that notion for a moment.
The u.s. keeps track of "radicalization" in the u.s. armed forces. So much so that they
regularly recruit men within the same unit to "keep an eye on potential extremists" in the same unit.
This happens all the time. It is a standard practice. Basically, informants.
Here is a guy, supposedly talking to god, and this never came up?
More importantly, this event happens at a time the u.s. is trying to distract from the pentagon-assisted
mass murder of a dozen servicemen.
Now, we're expected to believe that a marine, in a fire fight with deputies and SWAT, in close quarters,
where the marine would have had the element of surprise--we're expected to believe he managed
to murder four people, but not one of those people was a deputy? That in CQC, a marine, missed,
out of hundreds of rounds, against deputies?
And in the time he left and came back, he had enough time to put on full tactical gear, arm up, lay
down the glowsticks out front, pick a secure position of cover in an unfamiliar house, all
while sheriffs, swat, and a helicopter were en-route?
Now lets think about this from the point of view of the federal government committing a terror attack:
the murder of an infant is a heart-strings narrative. If you don't believe the u.s. wouldnt do it,
look at the million+ people murdered in the middle east by the u.s. military. Also look at david chipman,
ATF nominee, who was "proudly" responsible and directly involved in the murders andthe mass killings at waco.
The motive: The u.s. wants to classify veterans, overwhelming rightwing, as a "domestic terrorist"
threat, and this man would be the perfect patsy to paint them with such a brush. Timing seem too perfect?
You be the judge.
As the days roll on, we will see news outlets call everything I have just wrote a conspiracy, and
"dangerous misinformation" when others talk about it online.
We will see new elements of the story emerge, which can't be controlled. Or else no other
information will come out of the news, and many very important, very relevant questions, like
the las vegas massacre, will go completely unanswered.
The u.s. news today uses a new propaganda tactic: An event happens, with the "wrong race"
for the perpetrator, and then the media drops it. This acts to fuel the fire and spread the information
around the internet, while simultaneously getting the right to unwittingly spread the symbolism and
message inherint in the story: marines bad. rightwing bad. religion equals a dangerous mental disorder.
By pretending to "cover it up" the media effectively adds an air of legitimacy to a story that
could be composed completely of fabrications, or half truths.
So is this a false flag?
Lets take a look.
The elements of the narrative and surrounding context:
1. A marine commits a mass shooting supposedly.
2. "arguably white"
3. during a time the u.s. and congress wants to distract from the murder of 13 servicemen.
4. a baby was murdered.
5. others were murdered
6. he wore body armor
7. the u.s. is heading toward some sort of large civil strife, and both the left and right agree on this.
8. deputies engaged in a shootout in the building with the marine.
9. none of the deputies were injured somehow.
10. glowsticks were already laid out. an element of the bizarre here.
So lets break it down a little.
Here is a guy, supposedly **according to the lying press**, "talking to god".
Not hard to find a marine that might have screws loose. Not hard to put words in the mouth
of a man thats been framed either, but lets hold off on that notion for a moment.
The u.s. keeps track of "radicalization" in the u.s. armed forces. So much so that they
regularly recruit men within the same unit to "keep an eye on potential extremists" in the same unit.
This happens all the time. It is a standard practice. Basically, informants.
Here is a guy, supposedly talking to god, and this never came up?
More importantly, this event happens at a time the u.s. is trying to distract from the pentagon-assisted
mass murder of a dozen servicemen.
Now, we're expected to believe that a marine, in a fire fight with deputies and SWAT, in close quarters,
where the marine would have had the element of surprise--we're expected to believe he managed
to murder four people, but not one of those people was a deputy? That in CQC, a marine, missed,
out of hundreds of rounds, against deputies?
And in the time he left and came back, he had enough time to put on full tactical gear, arm up, lay
down the glowsticks out front, pick a secure position of *cover* in an unfamiliar house, all
while sheriffs, swat, and a helicopter were en-route?
Now lets think about this from the point of view of the federal government committing a terror attack:
1. the murder of an infant is a heart-strings narrative. If you don't believe the u.s. wouldnt do it,
look at the million+ people murdered in the middle east by the u.s. military. Also look at david chipman,
ATF nominee, who was "proudly" responsible and directly involved in the murders andthe mass killings at waco.
2. The motive: The u.s. wants to classify veterans, overwhelming rightwing, as a "domestic terrorist"
threat, and this man would be the perfect patsy to paint them with such a brush. Timing seem too perfect?
You be the judge.
3. As the days roll on, we will see news outlets call everything I have just wrote a conspiracy, and
"dangerous misinformation" when others talk about it online.
4. We will see new elements of the story emerge, which can't be controlled. Or else no other
information will come out of the news, and many very important, very **relevant** questions, like
the las vegas massacre, will go completely unanswered.
5. The u.s. news today uses a new propaganda tactic: An event happens, with the "wrong race"
for the perpetrator, and then the media drops it. This acts to fuel the fire and spread the information
around the internet, while simultaneously getting the right to unwittingly spread the symbolism and
message inherint in the story: marines bad. rightwing bad. religion equals a dangerous mental disorder.
By pretending to "cover it up" the media effectively adds an air of legitimacy to a story that
could be composed completely of fabrications, or half truths.
(post is archived)