California shooting WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTO

by eddie Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:58 pm

First topic message reminder :

On BBC news now

Units responding to a shooting incident may be 20 casualties

Nothing further yet

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:31 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So do you think that he planned to shoot the people at the centre all along? Why then did he go to the event in the first place? Was he hoping that nobody would suspect him because he'd been there? Why not just stay away and turn up later to shoot them?

For two reasons.

1) That people were jolly, off guard from drinking, thus slower to react and less likely to be able to disarm them. He would wait till they were in more intoxicated state.

2) To ensure many if all were there to try to cause as many casulaties as possible.

Its clear to me here attended to keep up apperances again, then left when he felt they were at their most vunerable and giving him the best chance to kill as many as possible. If the bombs had gone off there would have been far greater deaths and casulaties.

They wouldn't have been intoxicated at 10.30 or so in the morning. Apparently, it was like a business meeting which was then going to turn into a lunch celebration - they hadn't had time to get drunk by then.

Why would he need to keep up appearances? I doubt that if he hadn't turned up at all they would have thought - oh no, Farook's not here, he must be planning to shoot us.

Number 2 is possible I guess. It's still a bit odd though.

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

For two reasons.

1) That people were jolly, off guard from drinking, thus slower to react and less likely to be able to disarm them. He would wait till they were in more intoxicated state.

2) To ensure many if all were there to try to cause as many casulaties as possible.

Its clear to me here attended to keep up apperances again, then left when he felt they were at their most vunerable and giving him the best chance to kill as many as possible. If the bombs had gone off there would have been far greater deaths and casulaties.

They wouldn't have been intoxicated at 10.30 or so in the morning. Apparently, it was like a business meeting which was then going to turn into a lunch celebration - they hadn't had time to get drunk by then.

Why would he need to keep up appearances? I doubt that if he hadn't turned up at all they would have thought - oh no, Farook's not here, he must be planning to shoot us.

Number 2 is possible I guess. It's still a bit odd though.

Like I say he would be there to ensure himself how many would be there.
How best to then attack the place.
Knowing where most people are going to be.
Remember if this had been a normal day they would have been spread out throughout the building. With this invent they were very much mostly all in one place. They may well have drunk, the point is he leaves when the party is going strong and knows to then come back when they are all together, ensuring maximum casulties.

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:36 am

So are we to believe that this couple collected all that stuff right under the nose of his mother, and hoped she wouldn't notice because she lived in an "isolated" part of the house? Was she living in the garage or something?

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:38 am

Raggamuffin wrote:So are we to believe that this couple collected all that stuff right under the nose of his mother, and hoped she wouldn't notice because she lived in an "isolated" part of the house? Was she living in the garage or something?

Its bull she claims to know nothing, she is bound to be in on this and more so where mothers tend to glorify their children dying by murdering others. Again it is the religious aspect.
There is no way she would not have known what they doing, so she is clearly lying.

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:40 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They wouldn't have been intoxicated at 10.30 or so in the morning. Apparently, it was like a business meeting which was then going to turn into a lunch celebration - they hadn't had time to get drunk by then.

Why would he need to keep up appearances? I doubt that if he hadn't turned up at all they would have thought - oh no, Farook's not here, he must be planning to shoot us.

Number 2 is possible I guess. It's still a bit odd though.

Like I say he would be there to ensure himself how many would be there.
How best to then attack the place.
Knowing where most people are going to be.
Remember if this had been a normal day they would have been spread out throughout the building. With this invent they were very much mostly all in one place. They may well have drunk, the point is he leaves when the party is going strong and knows to then come back when they are all together, ensuring maximum casulties.

Why would they be spread throughout the building? It wasn't their work place, it was a conference centre where they gathered for this particular event. I don't think it's a huge building. They gathered together specifically for that event so they wouldn't have been wandering around anyway. The party wasn't going strong when he left.

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:41 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So are we to believe that this couple collected all that stuff right under the nose of his mother, and hoped she wouldn't notice because she lived in an "isolated" part of the house? Was she living in the garage or something?

Its bull she claims to know nothing, she is bound to be in on this and more so where mothers tend to glorify their children dying by murdering others. Again it is the religious aspect.
There is no way she would not have known what they doing, so she is clearly lying.

I don't want to libel the lady, but she should be thoroughly investigated, as should the rest of them. One of them wants to adopt the baby FFS.

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:43 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Like I say he would be there to ensure himself how many would be there.
How best to then attack the place.
Knowing where most people are going to be.
Remember if this had been a normal day they would have been spread out throughout the building. With this invent they were very much mostly all in one place. They may well have drunk, the point is he leaves when the party is going strong and knows to then come back when they are all together, ensuring maximum casulties.

Why would they be spread throughout the building? It wasn't their work place, it was a conference centre where they gathered for this particular event. I don't think it's a huge building. They gathered together specifically for that event so they wouldn't have been wandering around anyway. The party wasn't going strong when he left.

You are being too specific.
Remember many have gathered her for the event which is ensuring a sizeable amount of people as targets, which is better than in the work place itself. You are trying to be too elaborate, whenb this is a simple plan to attack, when many gather, to ensure multiple casulties. Its simple he attends, then leaves, returns with his wife and they try to kill as many as possible, which if the bombs had of worked, would have been far more.

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:44 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Its bull she claims to know nothing, she is bound to be in on this and more so where mothers tend to glorify their children dying by murdering others. Again it is the religious aspect.
There is no way she would not have known what they doing, so she is clearly lying.

I don't want to libel the lady, but she should be thoroughly investigated, as should the rest of them. One of them wants to adopt the baby FFS.

Like I say they would have kept their lives on the outside different as a cover, but there is no way they would also do this at home daily. The mother knew exactly what they would do, that to me is evident.

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:50 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why would they be spread throughout the building? It wasn't their work place, it was a conference centre where they gathered for this particular event. I don't think it's a huge building. They gathered together specifically for that event so they wouldn't have been wandering around anyway. The party wasn't going strong when he left.

You are being too specific.
Remember many have gathered her for the event which is ensuring a sizeable amount of people as targets, which is better than in the work place itself. You are trying to be too elaborate, whenb this is a simple plan to attack, when many gather, to ensure multiple casulties. Its simple he attends, then leaves, returns with his wife and they try to kill as many as possible, which if the bombs had of worked, would have been far more.

I like to be specific. Attention to detail is important.

Here we have a slightly different account saying that he left just after 8 am. How early did this event start for goodness sake?

It does say he sat at the back, so he might have been there to just clarify in his mind what the plan was when he returned.

One of the first tables the shooters encountered was Farook's, according to witness accounts. Farook, who worked for the county for five years in the health department, attended the event that morning, sitting at the back of the room with his back to the wall, said witnesses.

Farook left shortly after the event began -- just after 8 a.m, according to witnesses. Two people seated at the table recalled Farook leaving a coat and a bag.

When Farook later returned to his table with his wife, several people at the table were killed.

The room had about eight tables seating about eight people each, witnesses said. At the front of the room was a projector with workshop materials. To the screen's right was a table where the supervisors sat, including the head and deputy head of the division.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-conference-room-witnesses-recall-scene-san-bernardino/story?id=35611503

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:55 am

Like I say, if he was at the back is then pointing more to my view he was casing the situation for then later attacking. Again if you over elborate you will end up going around in circles. Somethings are simple and planned simple, just to us, it looks very strange how young parents would willing murder and know they would die, and leave a small child. This baffles people, but not when you understand martydom as viewed by extremists. Its not unique suicide killings to Islam, you have the Tamil Tigers, the kamikaze and less well known the Leonidas Squadron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_Squadron

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:59 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Like I say, if he was at the back is then pointing more to my view he was casing the situation for then later attacking. Again if you over elborate you will end up going around in circles. Somethings are simple and planned simple, just to us, it looks very strange how young parents would willing murder and know they would die, and leave a small child. This baffles people, but not when you understand martydom as viewed by extremists. Its not unique to Islam, you have the Tamil Tigers, the kamikaze and less well known the Leonidas Squadron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_Squadron

Yes, I think his reason for attending was as you said.

I don't mind going round in circles. You should know by now that I like detail - I discussed the details at great length when we were talking about the shootings in Hebron.

So that leaves the issue of what they planned to do when they left after the shooting. They clearly hadn't planned to stay there until the police arrived and go out in a blaze of glory. They went home and we don't know what they did. They hung around there for quite a while, presumably under the nose of the mother who didn't notice a thing apparently. They left either because they knew the police were on to them, or they had other plans.

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:05 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Like I say, if he was at the back is then pointing more to my view he was casing the situation for then later attacking. Again if you over elborate you will end up going around in circles. Somethings are simple and planned simple, just to us, it looks very strange how young parents would willing murder and know they would die, and leave a small child. This baffles people, but not when you understand martydom as viewed by extremists. Its not unique to Islam, you have the Tamil Tigers, the kamikaze and less well known the Leonidas Squadron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_Squadron

Yes, I think his reason for attending was as you said.

I don't mind going round in circles. You should know by now that I like detail - I discussed the details at great length when we were talking about the shootings in Hebron.

So that leaves the issue of what they planned to do when they left after the shooting. They clearly hadn't planned to stay there until the police arrived and go out in a blaze of glory. They went home and we don't know what they did. They hung around there for quite a while, presumably under the nose of the mother who didn't notice a thing apparently. They left either because they knew the police were on to them, or they had other plans.

It could be something as simple as spending their last moments with their child.
If the child was there. Sorry have not checked that, but this would make the most sense. Even if they viewed their human life of a lesser worth to an after life belief, they would still no doubt want to spend some of their last hours with their child. The plan does seem to be ad hoc after the attack at the event, but I guess they knew it would not take long to identify them after the attack. They could have been watching the news and events unfold and thus knew when best to carry out their second act when it becamse known the Police were onto them.

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:37 pm

Two different newsreaders refer to the shooters as "actors"
Live. On TV

Well?

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:40 pm

Here we go round the paranoid bush, the paranoid bush, the paranoid bush.
Here we go round the paranoid bush, on repetitive unfounded conspiracy.

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:42 pm

Did you watch it?
They called the shooters "actors"

Now if you'd watched that, you'd have replied with a different post.
But you didn't watch it, because you are in the brainwashed bush.

It's a live TV footage
So how can I be paranoid??? They say it. Four times.

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:44 pm

Did they Eddie, that is nice, so where is the proof they are actors?
Becuase they said so?

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:44 pm

eddie wrote:Two different newsreaders refer to the shooters as "actors"
Live. On TV

Well?

I have never, not once, before heard killers called actors.

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:45 pm

Didge, Did you watch it? If you didn't, how can you comment?
I am asking a question about something that is said on a video, and if you haven't watched it, I can't discuss it with you...can I?

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:46 pm

sassy wrote:
eddie wrote:Two different newsreaders refer to the shooters as "actors"
Live. On TV

Well?

I have never, not once, before heard killers called actors.

No.
And that's all I'm asking.

Why did they?

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:48 pm

Maybe because of shooting a film? The association made them say actors instead of shooters.

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:48 pm

An eye witness tells of three white men shooting

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:49 pm

eddie wrote:
sassy wrote:

I have never, not once, before heard killers called actors.

No.
And that's all I'm asking.

Why did they?

I don't know why the word 'actors' would even enter their heads. Trouble is, as with all these things, you never find out.

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Maybe because of shooting a film? The association made them say actors instead of shooters.

The newsreaders were told to say actors about live footage of a shooting?

Not understanding rags sorry

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:50 pm

eddie wrote:An eye witness tells of three white men shooting

That tallies with the other witness statements. The whole thing just doesn't add up.

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:51 pm

Were they?
is there a chance you have been comepletely taken in by something utterly false and wrong Eddie, as you so often claim of the rest of us?
Again, where is the proof they were actors.
A claim by a newsreporter is not something that is in any shape or form reliable at times soon after or during events

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:52 pm

I know. I've seen/heard the other witness interviews and they all said "three athletically built white men"

The police say two "Muslims"

The newsreaders say "actors"

Who knows eh?? Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:52 pm

eddie wrote:An eye witness tells of three white men shooting

He saw that even though they were in a vehicle "taking off"?

The other witness said they wore long sleeves, gloves, and that she couldn't see their faces, and she said they were white as well. Neither of them were black anyway, and a lot of Yanks seem to think that anyone who isn't black is white.

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:53 pm

eddie wrote:I know. I've seen/heard the other witness interviews and they all said "three athletically built white men"

The police say two "Muslims"

The newsreaders say "actors"

Who knows eh??

Yep, never take what they tell you at face value.

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:54 pm

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Were they?
is there a chance you have been comepletely taken in by something utterly false and wrong Eddie, as you so often claim of the rest of us?
Again, where is the proof they were actors.
A claim by a newsreporter is not something that is in any shape or form reliable at times soon after or during events

I don't think you're understanding the point of the whole thing Didge.
And I am not going to waste my time explaining it when everyone else seems to get the point.
Maybe someone else will explain it to you

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:54 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Maybe because of shooting a film? The association made them say actors instead of shooters.

The newsreaders were told to say actors about live footage of a shooting?

Not understanding rags sorry

Noooooo, not the Association. Laughing

I mean that the word "shooters" has an association with filming, so maybe they just said actors by mistake.

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:54 pm

Again what about the witnesses those unhurt and those hurt inside the building?
Are they all lying and now part of a conspiracy where they state only two armed people?

by Raggamuffin Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:54 pm

What would be the significance of calling them actors anyway?

by eddie Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:55 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:An eye witness tells of three white men shooting

He saw that even though they were in a vehicle "taking off"?

The other witness said they wore long sleeves, gloves, and that she couldn't see their faces, and she said they were white as well. Neither of them were black anyway, and a lot of Yanks seem to think that anyone who isn't black is white.

Three "athletically built" men, Whatever the colour, don't look like two Muslims - one a "ninety pound woman" though, do they?

by Guest Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:59 pm

eddie wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:Were they?
is there a chance you have been comepletely taken in by something utterly false and wrong Eddie, as you so often claim of the rest of us?
Again, where is the proof they were actors.
A claim by a newsreporter is not something that is in any shape or form reliable at times soon after or during events

I don't think you're understanding the point of the whole thing Didge.
And I am not going to waste my time explaining it when everyone else seems to get the point.
Maybe someone else will explain it to you

Sorry Eddie, what you do is ignore countless evidence and go off some very poor adrenaline based accounts by some who clearly are either confused or have not seen any of the events, as they do not match the vast majority of the witnesses.
Sorry Eddie, this is piss poor to say the least and every mass shootings or terrorist attacks you are already in the blief they are a set up, thus making your view impossible to be impartial.
This is because you have this insane view of a New World Order.
That is your choice but it really has no merit and such claims do nothing for the problem of dealing with the actual ideology and hate behind the crimes.

by Cass Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:53 am

eddie wrote:Did you watch it?
They called the shooters "actors"

Now if you'd watched that, you'd have replied with a different post.
But you didn't watch it, because you are in the brainwashed bush.

It's a live TV footage
So how can I be paranoid??? They say it. Four times.

Its a word that news reporters use on a regular basis. They use it to describe people involved in a situation and/or story they are reporting on all the time.

For instance when Russia invaded Ukraine they were constantly referring to the actors in this situation (ie the rebels, Putin, the Ukrainian government forces).

Players is also used. It is also used a hell of a lot in non-fiction literature.

They are not referring to anyone as an actor in the traditional sense.

by Original Quill Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:35 am

Cass wrote:
eddie wrote:Did you watch it?
They called the shooters "actors"

Now if you'd watched that, you'd have replied with a different post.
But you didn't watch it, because you are in the brainwashed bush.

It's a live TV footage
So how can I be paranoid??? They say it. Four times.

Its a word that news reporters use on a regular basis. They use it to describe people involved in a situation and/or story they are reporting on all the time.

For instance when Russia invaded Ukraine they were constantly referring to the actors in this situation (ie the rebels, Putin, the Ukrainian government forces).

Players is also used. It is also used a hell of a lot in non-fiction literature.

They are not referring to anyone as an actor in the traditional sense.

Right...common American police lingo. Particularly when there is a crowd milling about or at least not doing anything relevant...to distinguish the people in the 'action' the police are focused on, they will refer to the 'actors'.

But I'm still wondering how three white men at the Inland Center, became a man and his Pakistani wife when we get to San Bernardino Ave. And again...why weren't they getting their hat and getting out of there? Why weren't they halfway to Phoenix or Los Angeles? While we're at it, what about the $28,500 deposited in their account?

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:20 am

Cass wrote:
eddie wrote:Did you watch it?
They called the shooters "actors"

Now if you'd watched that, you'd have replied with a different post.
But you didn't watch it, because you are in the brainwashed bush.

It's a live TV footage
So how can I be paranoid??? They say it. Four times.

Its a word that news reporters use on a regular basis. They use it to describe people involved in a situation and/or story they are reporting on all the time.

For instance when Russia invaded Ukraine they were constantly referring to the actors in this situation (ie the rebels, Putin, the Ukrainian government forces).

Players is also used. It is also used a hell of a lot in non-fiction literature.

They are not referring to anyone as an actor in the traditional sense.

I'll agree with that.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:26 am

Original Quill wrote:
Cass wrote:

Its a word that news reporters use on a regular basis. They use it to describe people involved in a situation and/or story they are reporting on all the time.

For instance when Russia invaded Ukraine they were constantly referring to the actors in this situation (ie the rebels, Putin, the Ukrainian government forces).

Players is also used. It is also used a hell of a lot in non-fiction literature.

They are not referring to anyone as an actor in the traditional sense.

Right...common American police lingo. Particularly when there is a crowd milling about or at least not doing anything relevant...to distinguish the people in the 'action' the police are focused on, they will refer to the 'actors'.

But I'm still wondering how three white men at the Inland Center, became a man and his Pakistani wife when we get to San Bernardino Ave. And again...why weren't they getting their hat and getting out of there? Why weren't they halfway to Phoenix or Los Angeles? While we're at it, what about the $28,500 deposited in their account?

I'm wondering how anyone could tell what colour they were from the descriptions. If you look at the photo of Farook lying in the road, his arms look lightish anyway. I don't know if he got changed because according to the female witness, his arms were covered up before. In the photo of Malik, her legs are bare and they don't look that dark either. Neither of those two were black, so they're not going to be very dark anyway.

Zimmerman was also described as "white" by a lot of Yanks.

I've located the house. It's on Center Street nearish Pine Avenue, and it doesn't look very big, so I don't know how the mother lived in an "isolated" part of it.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:49 am

I'm quite interested in this message that Malik allegedly put on Facebook at the time of the shooting. Do they mean just before the shooting, just after it, or in the middle of it? They need to establish when exactly she did that because obviously if she was shooting people she wasn't posting on Facebook at the same time. Can they tell how the message was posted - ie, from a home computer, from a phone, or whatever?

If it's genuine, that could have been her way of telling people the motive for the shooting.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:02 am

Just a post on how utterly evil this pair was. Farook was working in a perfectly good job, working for the country that he obviously despised and taking money for doing so. He knew some of those people in the room, he sat there with them all, hearing them talking and seeing them alive and well and looking forward to the lunchtime party, but that meant nothing to him - he treated them like they were nothing.

There's not much info about what Malik did with her time, but she left that little baby with her mother-in-law, knowing that the child would grow up under the stigma of having murderers for parents.

How did they manage to hide these foul sides to their personalities?

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:10 pm

There was a bit of a row about a tweet from Al-Jazeera producer, Hashem Said. He said that a photo of Malik with her face uncovered was disrespectful. Later on, he apologised and said he meant that it was disrespectful to her family. I don't think that helped. Who cares what her family thinks about her face being exposed? Talk about some people getting their priorities wrong.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Photo-of-San-Bernardino-shooter-without-burka-6679589.php

by eddie Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cass wrote:
eddie wrote:Did you watch it?
They called the shooters "actors"

Now if you'd watched that, you'd have replied with a different post.
But you didn't watch it, because you are in the brainwashed bush.

It's a live TV footage
So how can I be paranoid??? They say it. Four times.

Its a word that news reporters use on a regular basis. They use it to describe people involved in a situation and/or story they are reporting on all the time.

For instance when Russia invaded Ukraine they were constantly referring to the actors in this situation (ie the rebels, Putin, the Ukrainian government forces).

Players is also used. It is also used a hell of a lot in non-fiction literature.

They are not referring to anyone as an actor in the traditional sense.

I'll agree with that.

I've never heard them say that before - and the newsreader corrected himself so if it's a "constant thing" they do, why did he correct himself?
I've watched loads of news items from USA and never heard this, nor has anyone I've asked either.

Sorry not buying it.

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:29 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'll agree with that.

I've never heard them say that before - and the newsreader corrected himself so if it's a "constant thing" they do, why did he correct himself?
I've watched loads of news items from USA and never heard this, nor has anyone I've asked either.

Sorry not buying it.

What are you suggesting then eddie? Are you suggesting that those two were just actors and they're not really dead? Are you saying that none of those people at the centre were really shot?

by eddie Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:34 pm

I can't find any evidence of USA newsreaders calling anyone "actors"

Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places?

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:35 pm

Perhaps they just mean people taking part.

by eddie Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:39 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'll agree with that.

I've never heard them say that before - and the newsreader corrected himself so if it's a "constant thing" they do, why did he correct himself?
I've watched loads of news items from USA and never heard this, nor has anyone I've asked either.

Sorry not buying it.

What are you suggesting then eddie? Are you suggesting that those two were just actors and they're not really dead? Are you saying that none of those people at the centre were really shot?

Nope.
They were all shot - that much is true

There were THREE ATHLETICALLY BUILT MEN that eye witnesses saw
The police were hunting for THREE people
They found two Muslims in a car and chased them down and killed them

Like Quill says in his post.... Above

Rags to understand what I'm saying you have to know about false flags and why and whom stands to benefit from this being the act of Muslims when in fact, it's the work of a higher power's orders.

Enough "shootings" means people get riled up and angry and hey ho, war happens or Obama can pass his gun law

Look it up and be prepared to have a whole lot of stuff to wade through (some shit stuff too lol, I only look at people with credentials really - lots of ex-military and doctors and in th case of 9/11 firemen and pilots)

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Eddie, why are you ignoring the vast majority of witnesses that saw two people?

Please answer

by Raggamuffin Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:46 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What are you suggesting then eddie? Are you suggesting that those two were just actors and they're not really dead? Are you saying that none of those people at the centre were really shot?

Nope.
They were all shot - that much is true

There were THREE ATHLETICALLY BUILT MEN that eye witnesses saw
The police were hunting for THREE people
They found two Muslims in a car and chased them down and killed them

Like Quill says in his post.... Above

Rags to understand what I'm saying you have to know about false flags and why and whom stands to benefit from this being the act of Muslims when in fact, it's the work of a higher power's orders.

Enough "shootings" means people get riled up and angry and hey ho, war happens or Obama can pass his gun law

Look it up and be prepared to have a whole lot of stuff to wade through (some shit stuff too lol, I only look at people with credentials really - lots of ex-military and doctors and in th case of 9/11 firemen and pilots)

So who do you think the actors were? scratch

Are you suggesting that Karook and Malik were not involved at all, and that all the stuff was planted on them and in their house?

by nicko Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:54 pm

Didn't someone say "all the Worlds a stage and the people are just Actors"

by Original Quill Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:58 pm

eddie wrote:I can't find any evidence of USA newsreaders calling anyone "actors"

Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places?

What data evidence do you have of newsreaders? Check with news producers or police. They are the ones calling people that.

2 - 3 men or individuals. At this point it is unclear. But there is definitely conflicting evidence.

by Sponsored content