With the intense focus on the supposed Islamic Bonnie and Clyde team of Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a lot of people seem to have forgotten that the initial reports of the tragedy fingered 3 white guys. Cops on KTLA reported that witnesses said as much.
Indeed, the Fox affiliate in Los Angeles tweeted that police were seeking 3 white males in relation to the shooting, in this tweet helpfully screen-capped at patheos.com in a story by Lilandra Ra.
Sally Abdelmageed was an eyewitness to the San Bernardino shooting on December 2 tragedy, and she spoke
to CBS news, as related here by Zero Hedge:
“I heard shots fired and it was from you know an automatic weapon. […] very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on they were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”
When asked what the gunman that shot into the room looked like the eyewitness replied: “I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […] huge assault rifle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same”.
“You are certain you saw three men,” the newscaster asked Abdelmageed. “Yes,”
said Abdelmageed.
“It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”
Hard to mistake 3 tall white guys with athletic builds for a guy and a woman who by most accounts is somewhat
petite.
The problem with posts like
The problem with posts like this is that it perpetuates false information. To put out these types of speculations based on confusion at the moment and unverified “eyewitness” reports is not responsible. It creates situations like the poor parents from Sandy Hook who have been literally tortured by someone who read these sorts of posts about Sandy Hook, fixated on them and proceeded to barrage them over the years with his delusional beliefs, including charges that their son hadn’t existed. I’m really getting pretty fed-up with this sort of stuff. http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-newtown-denier-went-too-far-20151223-story.html
And by the way, he was fired and rightly so.
This is the op-ed written by the parents of the boy. For those who think conspiracy theories are harmless, please read this and try and put yourselves into the families shoes….albeit Sandy Hook, or any other events where conspiracy theories abound. You do these families great harm when you put this junk out under the guise of “finding the truth.” A little more sympathy for the victims and a little less mindless speculation might be in order. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/sfl-on-sandy-hook-anniversary-two-parents-target-fau-professor-who-taunts-family-victims-20151210-story.html
Maybe...
Could it be a conspiracy and a cover up? Or could it be something else?
There is a classical psychology demonstration in which — by prearrangement — the back door to a full classroom suddenly opens, and two people come rushing in, one holding a banana and chasing the other. They run frantically, exiting through the front door. The teacher then asks the surprised students, each to write an account of what they saw.
You guessed it… greatly differing eyewitness accounts. Not because of a conspiracy, but because of varying perceptions caused by the confusion of a fast-moving, unexpected event. How much more distortion might the trauma of a mass-killing cause?
Here we are reading one account of a single person. Our ability to evaluate the accuracy of this account would be greatly helped if we could read the accounts of each eyewitness. Is there general agreement among the eyewitness accounts that there were three gunmen: tall athletic white men wearing black, military-style attire, but big puffy pockets? Or did someone “cherry pick” for an account which would seem to cast doubt on the official story, and post it on a website, while avoiding other contradictory accounts?
7 Eye Witnesses
Seven separate eyewitnesses who were present at the shooting identified three white men dressed in all black military attire.
4 hours later, we saw the bodies of 2 Arab Muslims, one a diminutive woman, and we were told they were the shooters.
Doesn’t this raise some questions?
Sally Abdelmageed
Sally Abdelmageed was the witness that the news captured on TV. She seems quite sure of herself and what she saw. She doesn’t sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. See for yourself on You Tube:. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwTYja7GXcY
When you study history, and you remove the natural disasters, most of what’s left involved some sort of conspiracy. Why would it be any different today?
If you want to pursue conspiracies that may not be so crazy, here’s a free, well-documented online book:
Lifting the Veil – An Investigative History of the United States Pathocracy
Researched and Written by Timothy M. Silver http://www.wanttoknow.info/mk/liftingtheveil#16
Most supposed eye witnesses
Most supposed eye witnesses are quite sure of themselves, until they’re proven wrong. And that psychological need to be correct has caused a few people to sit in jails in the country for quite some time. Thank God for the Innocence Project and DNA.
Want to address the point I raised. Or did you bother to read the Posner’s op ed. I find it quite touching and a definite warning about how questioning every one of these sorts of incidences can cause great harm and pain to the actual victims. There’s also a voyeuristic tinge about this conspiracy sort of questioning that I find very unsettling and troubling. But apparently you’re not so troubled by it, more important to question what has been pretty much verified now. Just question everything regardless of hurt or harm it might cause victims. Full frickin’ steam ahead I guess.
did you bother to read the Posner's op ed
I tried to, but both of your links are hiding behind paywalls.
BTW, I have family connections to Sandy Hook. My father was born there and my grandparents are buried there. I still have relatives there: Lynches, Collinses, Keanes, Griffins and Igoes. I have lost contact over the years, but I never heard that any of the family was involved in the shootings.
Questioning things isn’t what caused the hurt. Gullibility can encourage more false flags.
We can’t always trust the government to tell us the truth.
Lyndon Johnson escalated the Viet Nam conflict under false pretenses. The war exacted a huge human cost. Estimates of the number of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians killed vary from 800,000 to 3 million. Some 200,000–300,000 Cambodians & Laotians and 60,000 U.S. service members also died in the conflict. Full frickin’ steam ahead.
FWIW, I don’t think Obama’s a Muslim, I don’t think Oswald killed Kennedy,
And I believe there’s a lot we’re not being told about 9/11.
Isn't it at least a
Isn’t it at least a possibility that if they were dressed in black military attire and well covered up that they could have been mistaken for 3 white men? How much of their faces were actually visible? And, could not the woman involved been seen as a small man? I think in times of extreme stress and terror people’s minds react in a somewhat distorted way. That’s why eye witnesses are often so varied in their descriptions of what they are certain they saw. I’m not sure what the cover up – if there is one- would be? What is the point of it? Who do you think they are covering up for? And who is doing the covering up?
Two or Three?
Isn’t it at least a possibility that—–they could have been mistaken for 3 white men?
2 White Men? Certainly a possibility. 3 white men? Highly unlikely.
What is the point of it?
The only things I can think of are
1)Gun Control.
2)Manufacturing consent for War by demonizing Muslims.
Shall we be swayed by evidence, or by assertions?
I have the open mind of a scientist, which means that if something that I believe is incorrect, nothing could be better than to be presented with evidence which undermines my incorrect belief.
In this discussion, so far, we have been presented with the testimony of a single witness. In response to questions about whether the recollection of one person after a traumatic event is sufficiently credible; tomaidh has asserted that “Seven separate eyewitnesses” are in agreement, and he challenge:”Doesn’t this raise some questions?”
Well, yes it does raise questions, starting with: “Why do you not name these seven witnesses, and where is a link to videos of them telling their stories?” Another question it raises is, “Tomaidh, do you not understand that a simple assertion means very little unless you can ground it with verifiable evidence?”
If, in fact, there are seven people with similar accounts, I think ws would need to be able to make sure that these are actually 7 independent accounts, and not several people each repeating what they heard someone else say. Whether the story tomaidh would have us believe is, in fact, true or not: In either case, before going into print with something this important, should he not first make sure to gather solid information and present it as part of the story, instead of trying to cob together the “proof,” retroactively? Citizen journalism, (in my opinion) should adhere to sound press standards.
Link to videos
“Why do you not name these seven witnesses, and where is a link to videos of them telling their stories?
Let’s just say I am lazy. Here’s a better source:
San Bernardino shooting – A Closer Look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHtYBUqnLuY
If you want more, Google “San Bernardino”, then click on “videos”. You’ll see 48 videos (at latest count).
In the beginning of this video, 5 actual eyewitnesses, the father of an eyewitness and the Police all claim there were 3 killers. They had extremely specific information: Three (not 2 or 5) muscular white men wearing black fatigues and body armor and carrying rifles (not pistols).
They described the vehicle as a Black GMC Yukon, moving slowly (not speeding away). FWIW, the vehicle the cops shot up with the “perpetrators” inside was a Ford! They did find an abandoned Yukon, however. It was about 2 blocks away.
There are many more anomalies.
Can we always believe what the government tells us? There’s a famous Marxist quote: “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes. (Attributed to Chico, not Karl in “Duck Soup”).
If you’re observing current events, the “Boogie Man du jour” is, collectively, the Muslims.. “They hate us for our freedom” said Bush.
In my youth, it was the Soviets. In the late 1800s, it was the Spanish. We went to war with Spain because the people were told that the Spanish sank the Battleship Maine. In 1974, Admiral Hyman Rickover and his staff decided there was an internal explosion.
Was it a mistake? Was it deception? Who knows, but 3000 Americans died, as well as 10,000 Spanish and 10,000 Cubans. They had families, too.
In 1964, President Johnson used an alleged attack (Tonkin Gulf Incident) by North Vietnamese gun boats on U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin to greatly escalate the American War in Vietnam.
In “The Fog of War”. A 2003 documentary interview with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, he said that “It didn’t happen.”
BTW, the US lost that war, but the weapons manufacturers made out just fine.
Unabridged speech paramount, not protecting sensitive people
Just by typing “THREE WHITE GUYS SHOOTING” https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=THREE+WHITE+GUYS+SHOOTING into goggle I got the usual pages of links. Take your pick.
I would think Tom (and other article writers) are more often intent on submitting an article to call attention to a topical event with reports that have inconsistencies, inaccuracies and down-right questionable information, as reported.
Of course, his article is a legitimate free speech exercise, regardless of how others may be affected by it, either members of the public or intimate friends and family. There are too many ways for personal offensiveness that could stand in the way of free speech.
It is the unabridged speech that is paramount here, not protecting the sensitivities of people close to the reported event or those concerned about people in the news and who are sympathetic to the plight of those people in the news. Otherwise, what’s the point of free speech and an industry that sells the very news that becomes part of public debate and free speech.
JFK’s assassination and 9/11 are the two major events in our time that made “conspiracy theories” a bad phrase, and became a weapon, a club of sorts, to beat back people who publicly and privately disagree with official reports or news reports that are akin to ‘what’s wrong with this picture.’
We need a bit more Jeffersonian in this country and bit less Bonheurian.
Yes, I suppose that the
Yes, I suppose that the University shouldn’t have fired that professor after he basically tortured a family for years after they lost their child at Sandy Hook. Because, gee, he was just exercising free speech. Of course legal scholars would tell you that even free speech has it’s limitations, for the common good. Did anyone bother to read the parent’s op ed in the paper, it might give you a little insight into why this pubic flagellation can be so wrong. And of course as someone else pointed out here certainly this concept of citizen journalism should still require some thought and standards, otherwise it’s just garbage. And links to other pieces of undocumented or verified speculation doesn’t fit within the guidelines of good journalistic standards.
Links
And links to other sites that are hidden behind a paywall doesn’t fit within the guidelines of good journalistic standards.
This isn’t about Sandy Hook, however unfortunate that may be.And it’s definitely not about a professor who tortured a family for years. That’s unjustifiable
In the San Bernardino videos we have uniformed police saying it was 3 white men, and other police saying it was 2 radicalized Muslims. In both cases, without proof.
The truth is, we don’t know the truth. Maybe we never will.
Clearly a current topic of discussion
The limitations of free speech vary from person to person. But where free speech endangers the lives of people, obviously there should be inherent limits. The firing you’re describing was not a criminal matter. If it was criminal in nature he should have been arrested and prosecuted.
You seem to have a deep current of emotions that tends to underscore some of your comments, out of context to your actual personal involvement in some events, and, I feel not a particularly healthy form of expression.
The interesting thing about the San Bernardino videos Tom is referencing is that they are fresh, topical reporting with obvious discrepancies. Clearly in context and clearly a current topic of discussion.
Sorry Vidda, I think there's
Sorry Vidda, I think there’s definitely a relevance. Doesn’t surprise me that you don’t see the connection though considering your constant embracing of these sorts of internet conspiracy pieces of junk posing as journalism.
I have to assume you didn’t read the op ed based on your comments.
I’m talking about this continual creating of conspiracy theories about every event that happens because some don’t or won’t believe anything unless they were there. It is creating an atmosphere where people like the professor I’m referencing feel totally validated about actions that are reprehensible. It doesn’t surprise me though that you and Tomaidh don’t or won’t “get” the link or the question about whether this sort of use of the internet is injurious to others since there are no limits or standards on what can be said or done outside of personal restraints. You want to take this to a more personal level, “deep current of emotions” my whatever. Your trying to bring this down to some sort of personal level instead of having the discussion just points out how little victims rights rings true to either of you if you have a new conspiracy theory to embrace. How sad.
And just a little FYI, I think it’s probable that there were 3 gunmen, I’m not discounting those eyewitness accounts at all as I know the police were looking for 3 people for quite some time. What I object to is now it’s “three white guys”, just stirring up those conspiracy waters again for your own entertainment.
You render the exchange of ideas with you quite useless
Rosa, like Tom, I don’t use paywalls for articles online. When you post links like that include your access code.
I don’t embrace, nor have I a “continual creating of conspiracy theories about every event that happens.” I don’t know anyone who reads the news or see every event in that manner. My mind is not so unilateral that I suck up every “conspiracy (theory) about every event that happens.” That’s ridiculous.
Your almost pathological opposition and unhealthy tenaciousness against anyone who you ‘believe’ only think in terms of conspiracies, renders the exchange of information and ideas with you quite useless. How ‘sad’ that is.
I don't know what you're
I don’t know what you’re talking about as far as needing an access code. If you can’t get it to come up try google with Posner Sun Sentinal or Sandy Hook Parent response, Sun Sentinel. Funny that you claim not to embrace conspiracy theories since every post about one here has had you signing on and defending each theory as freedom of speech. If you want to have an exchange of ideas about the subject you need to try to avoid throwing out barbs if I disagree with you. Or personal comments ike pathological opposition and unhealthy tenaciousness. Funny but I actually don’t believe I’ve ever resorted to using that sort of language towards you…well maybe a little bit snarky but never as personal as calling you pathological. So here’s a question, At what point do you think freedom of speech crosses over and becomes an infringement on the rights of grieving parents? Or do you think there is such a point? So you think Tomaidh posting that article about the Sandy Hook book is a respectable response to my asking the question about the rights of the victim’s families? Answer away. I’m curious as to what you think.
Beyond the digression
My “barbs” is my analysis of what I see as your mental state. When you refer to people as having “mindless speculation, a voyeuristic tinge, it’s just garbage, embracing pieces of junk,” you’re not exactly an impersonal sweet smelling rose.
I said “almost pathological” etc,..
Btw, we’re beyond your Sandy Hook digression. Now, back to What Happened to The “3 White Guys” ?
And well yes, Vidda, you
I’ll take the higher ground and not respond to your personal comments. It’s tempting to respond in kind but I’ll move on. And yes, I do think that when you indulge in speculation about horrific events based on what you feel or saw on TV, the definition of voyeuristic is apt and applicable. Personal opinion, not a directed barb at all. If the shoe fits……
And perhaps you’ve moved beyond Sandy Hook but obviously Tomaidh has decided rather than have a reasonable discussion about the effects of conspiracy theory discussions, he’s much rather post cites to disgusting books that perpetuate the pain onto the parents. Why should either of you take responsibility for perhaps creating more damage to others.
Higher ground? What higher?
You left out a few of your quotes on this page: “mindless speculation, {a voyeuristic tinge}, it’s just garbage, embracing pieces of junk,” Nice cherry picking.
We all are entitled to “one man’s opinion.” There are huge numbers who simply do not agree with you. It’s as plain as that.
You say: “Why should either of you take responsibility for “perhaps” creating more damage to others.”
Perhaps??
So you are only speculating on your perception of alleged damage to “others,” the Sandy Hook off-topic notwithstanding…you really don’t know.
Moreover, you have no idea and zero proof that we are personally “creating more damage to others.” You are simply left with “one man opinion.”
I said perhaps, I didn't say
I said perhaps, I didn’t say you were creating more damage but the question I ask and the reason I posted about the Professor and Sandy Hook incident is to ask whether constantly posting these conspiracy theories about everything doesn’t encourage people feeling free to attack victims and families of victims in these cases. That’s the question and I said perhaps, I am not saying it’s necessarily true. I would hope that more people might be concerned about that possibility than those huge numbers you seem to think wouldn’t give a damn or have an ounce of empathy. Ah well, done with this.
"Everything?"
I’ve been trying to tell you Rosa there is no such thing and it is impossible to “constantly posting these conspiracy theories about everything ” Everything?
I do not know even of person, not one person who “constantly posting these conspiracy theories about everything.” Saying that repeatedly is a symptom of what I see as your borderline pathology about so-called conspiracy theories. Get over it already.
You should have been done with this a long time ago. You didn’t need to bring up the Sandy Hook business at all. You seem to more want to use SH as a wedge to drive home, yet again, your obsession with people who speak in terms of a so-called “con•spir•a•cy the•o•ry.”
Get over it already.
Now come on Vidda, you know I
Now come on Vidda, you know I didn’t literally mean “everything”….don’t you?
You continue being rude with your references to what you suppose to be my borderline pathology and not answering the question I asked. Tomaidh posted about a conspiracy theory with the title “3 White Guys” that is going around the internet at which point I posited that posting these internet conspiracy theories could be causing additional pain to victims or families of victims as in the case of the Sandy Hook parents. Instead of answering the question you seem to want to attack me. I think it’s a legitimate question about social media, citizen journalism and conspiracy theory believers. You seem to be the one that is very very upset because I asked a simple question. Perhaps your own obsessive pathology is the problem. I don’t have to get over anything, I’m just asking a simple question. Well yes, I guess I did offer some personal and somewhat negative feelings about conspiracy theorist embracers. Seems to have struck a chord with you. Perhaps you’re the one that should “Get Over It Already”
Full of absolutes
This is a discussion. You do not upset me. My comments are my analysis of your comments.
Moreover, I don’t care if you think my using the word pathology as rude. You should hear the way you describe those who you believe are so-called conspiracy theorists. You can dish it out multiple times but you can’t take my one little word pathology. Yeah, right.
Now, about your overuse of absolutes. These in particular in this piece = “constantly” and “everything.” Perhaps you should find another way of expressing your thoughts. The following are your quotes from just this piece. You’ve used them, and similar ones frequently in other article comments:
Rosa says:
>Doesn’t surprise me that you don’t see the connection though considering your constant embracing of these sorts of internet conspiracy pieces of junk
>is to ask whether constantly posting these conspiracy theories about everything doesn’t encourage people feeling free to attack victims
>and quite another to constantly be claiming that any horrific event that happens and ends in the death of innocents is somehow traceable back to our government acting covertly for whatever reasons.
>to constantly question every event and always try to find some nefarious reason behind the event occurring that leads back to some sort of covert activity becomes a sickness of a sort
>If you are constantly looking at conspiracy theory sites you will receive these sorts of trashy emails.
>Just question everything regardless of hurt or harm it might cause victims
>I posted about the Professor and Sandy Hook incident is to ask whether constantly posting these conspiracy theories about everything doesn’t encourage people feeling free to attack
Well all I can say is that
Well, I initially fell into the trap but have deleted my comment. It seems that rather than have any sort of discussion about the responsibilities of citizen journalism or posting conspiracy theory information ( is that better?), this discussion keeps getting more and more personal and I’m not going to get into it any further. I’ll leave you to your criticisms and corrections. Sorry about the constant use of the word constanty, obviously it really annoys you. Wouldn’t want to do that.
Mischaracterization
As I said, that’s okay, you weren’t annoying or upsetting me as you claim.
It’s been a trip.
You are indeed a master of mischaracterization.
Free Speech
Since when is it an attack on free speech, to point out flaws in an argument and to criticize irresponsibly going into print with unsupported assertions?
Coincidence or Synchronicity?
Totally unrelated to this in any way, I was sent a link to a book yesterday:
Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (It was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control)
By Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek, Editors – MOON ROCK BOOKS
It’s a 426 page pdf. I downloaded it, but I’m unlikely to read it: it’s much too long. Maybe it’s just a conspiracy to sell books.
The email was spam. It was not sent specifically to me. Here’s a link: http://rense.com/general96/nobodydied.html
The email stated:
Yet what if, as claimed by a highly decorated US general (Smedley Butler, USMC), there are hidden forces actually manipulating all of these events in order to promote fear, stoke the fires of the war juggernaut, and pad the gilded pockets of the individuals and mega-corporations who profit from all this?
Trash Bin
I just checked my trash bin. The email was sent to me on December 12. I just got around to reading it yesterday.
Conspiracy Theory?
Is a conspiracy theory any theory which suggests that some person in power is actually LYING to the public?
That’s bogus.
As we all know, our democratic leaders would never do such a thing.
Or is a conspiracy theory any theory one does not agree with?
As an example:
The Armenian Genocide was the Ottoman Turkish government’s 1915 systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects inside their historic homeland. The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 800,000 and 1.5 million.
It was a horrible example of man’s inhumanity to man.
However, in present day Turkey it is considered a “Conspiracy Theory”. It is actually a crime to call it a Holocaust.
The “official story” of many disasters has NOT actually been proven. Just because some authority figure says it has, doesn’t make it so.
Ask for PROOF, and continue asking until you get it.
Where is the PROOF Osama did 9/11?
Even the FBI states they don’t have it.
con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry
con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry, noun
a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.
If in fact, which I doubt, the Turks are using the actual expression “Conspiracy theory” then they are misusing the expression according to the dictionary It’s quite one thing for a country to make it illegal to refer to a genocide as such due to repression of historical events and quite another to constantly be claiming that any horrific event that happens and ends in the death of innocents is somehow traceable back to our government acting covertly for whatever reasons.
And while it has sometimes been proved that governments do act covertly to influence events, to constantly question every event and always try to find some nefarious reason behind the event occurring that leads back to some sort of covert activity becomes a sickness of a sort. And leads to events like what happened to the Posners. But enough of this discussion, it’s quite clear based on your posting that cite to that book that you could care less about causing pain to those left behind or have any sort of reasonable discussion about it. No surprise there I guess. And it doesn’t surprise me at all that that link showed up in your email. If you are constantly looking at conspiracy theory sites you will receive these sorts of trashy emails.
Not a clue
You have no idea what’s going on. And take things too personally.
I posted that link because it seemed to me to be an unusual coincidence, not to deprecate your posts.
But…Suppose, just suppose Fetzer and Palecek are right. (FWIW, I don’t think that they are, but my mind is not closed to that possibility.) Then, these families are experiencing no grief at all, and your empathy is being taken advantage of).
But, of course, our government would never lie to us, would it?
How about “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, “Assad gassed his own people”, “Putin shot down the Malaysian airliner”, and the big one that expanded Viet Nam: the “Tonkin Gulf Incident”.
All of these have since been proven false.
That’s why I’m so suspicious of government pronouncements.
Getting back to San Bernardino:
Would the families be less grief-stricken if it turns out that somebody other than the 2 “Radicalized Muslims” did it?
Personally to even suppose
Did you bother to really read what I posted? Seems like you didn’t or just skimmed or you wouldn’t bother to ask me that question about our government lying.
Secondly as I stated earlier I suspect that they do still think there were probably 3 people involved, what I have an issue with and what fits in conspiracy theory mode is the questioning of whether the 2 people who died, in a barrage of gunfire by the way, armed to the teeth by the way, were really 2 white men.
I’m not taking anything personally and actually I have a few ideas about what’s going on. But then it always comes down to personal attacks when one has nothing to back up one’s statements I suppose. You may think that I have no ideas but I’m beginning to wonder if you have any empathy.
Conspiracy Fact?
con•spir•a•cy the•o•ry, noun
a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.
Sometimes that happens to be true. What do we call it then?
Let’s take an example from history:
On February 27, 1933, the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down due to arson. The government blamed it on Communists and Jews, greatly assisting Hitler’s rise to power. (And justifying the subsequent Holocaust).
Most historians now agree that forces within the Hitler regime were to blame.
Two US Government operations deserve scrutiny:
1.) Operation Gladio is undisputed historical fact. Gladio was part of a post-World War II program set up by the CIA and NATO supposedly to thwart future Soviet/communist invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe. In fact, it became a state-sponsored right-wing terrorist network, involved in false flag operations and the subversion of democracy.
The existence of Gladio was confirmed and admitted by the Italian government in 1990.
2.) Operation Northwoods was a proposed operation against the Cuban government that originated within the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.
Another unrelated synchronicity: As I type this, Vermont Public Radio is discussing the Armenian Genocide.
Because you don't seem to
Because you don’t seem to bother to read my posts let me repeat what I said earlier.
And while it has sometimes been proved that governments do act covertly to influence events, to constantly question every event and always try to find some nefarious reason behind the event occurring that leads back to some sort of covert activity becomes a sickness of a sort.
I’ve read extensively about the Armenian Genocide, what the Turkish government is doing is not a conspiracy theory, it’s repression of historical fact.
Constantly?
“what the Turkish government is doing is not a conspiracy theory, it’s repression of historical fact”
I agree with you 100%. However, the Turks DO refer to it as “Conspiracy Theory”
That phrase has become a convenient and effective device to stifle legitimate questioning of government activities.
“to constantly question every event and always try to find some nefarious reason behind the event occurring that leads back to some sort of covert activity becomes a sickness of a sort”
I agree with this statement as well. I don’t think I “constantly” question every event. My questioning is quite selective. I’ve already stated that I believe the “official” accounts of Sandy Hook.
To constantly support whatever the government feeds you strikes me as being dangerously gullible.
To constantly support
“To constantly support whatever the government feeds you strikes me as being dangerously gullible.”
I’m in total agreement with you on this point. Thank God neither of us does that!
oh boy
“To constantly support whatever the government feeds you strikes me as being dangerously gullible.”
Jeez, you really teed yourself up on this one ….I can say the same about most posts you put up here.
Please don’t construe this as being snarky, really, I just saying it.