Tuesday, 8 December 2015


A Guest Article by Kevin Barrett of 'Veterans Today'

(See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/06/holes/ for additional videos)

(I apologise for the numbering problem which are mine not the authors)

San Bernadino shooting story shot full of holes by patsies’ attorney

By Kevin Barrett on December 6, 2015
  1. As CNN has reported, an attorney in the case has stated bluntly that the government’s account of what happened in San Bernadino “does not add up.”
    One think we know for sure: The government is lying. So what really happened? Here are some obvious questions that the mainstream media is afraid to ask.
      1. Since the windows of the couple’s SUV were found rolled up and blown out, how could the couple have initiated a gun battle with police through rolled-up windows? Nobody is going to fire assault weapons through rolled-up vehicle windows. The logical inference is that the police executed these people in cold blood. There was no “shootout.”
      2. Both victims were found dead in handcuffs. Are we supposed to believe that they initiated a gun battle with police while wearing handcuffs and shooting through rolled-up windows?! It seems that the two patsies were handcuffed, set in place for execution according to a scripted plan, and summarily shot dead.
  2. Why the handcuffs?
  3. Why the handcuffs?
  4. If the alleged shooters really “had contact with Syrian al Qaeda-affiliated group AND al Shabaab in Somalia” why wouldn’t the authorities make every effort to capture them alive so they could be interrogated, and their alleged terror network dismantled? This same question comes up every time the authorities summarily execute terror suspects and/or witnesses – Bin Laden, Mohamed Merah, the Charlie Hebdo patsies, Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and key witness Ibragim Todashev…
4. If the couple was really part of a terrorist network, would the FBI let the media ransack the crime scene?
5. If this supposed radical Muslim Bonnie-and-Clyde acted alone, who was the third gunman reported by multiple eyewitnesses?
7. Why would Inland Regional Center conduct active shooter drills “every month or so” as reported by the Los Angeles Times?
8. Is it just a coincidence that the only center for disabled people in the world that conducts active shooter drills every month (I challenge readers to find another one) happened to be the place where either (a) a huge mass shooting just happened to erupt, or (b) a drill went live?
9. And if it’s just a coincidence, were the 46 drills of 9/11 also a coincidence, Peter Power’s terror drills on 7/7/2005 yet another coincidence, the Boston Marathon bomb drills one more coincidence, the multiple-location active shooter exercises in Paris on 11/13 just another coincidence…and to accept all this “coincidence,” do you have to be a batshit-crazy coincidence theorist?
10. If this were really “radical Islamic terrorism,” why would the perpetrators kill a bunch of disabled people, rather than targeting high-level individuals who are responsible for the murder of more than a million Muslims since the 9/11/2001 neocon propaganda stunt?
If we ever hear: “This just in! Radical Muslim terrorists have slaughtered Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dov Zakheim, and the other architects of the genocidal War on Islam in General and Palestine in Particular launched by the 9/11 inside job,” I just might believe it. Until that day, we are safe in assuming that the increasingly ridiculous stories of alleged radical Islamist attacks on random civilians that no Muslim would ever want to harm – like virtually all alleged Islamic terror plots since 9/11, according to Aaronson’s detailed investigation – are part of the same Gladio B program launched by the 9/11 neocon coup d’état.

My (TV) comment on a Guardian Trump speech article 8.12.2015 -

"Guardian 8.12.2015 re. Trump on San Bernandino

"Yet another wave of hysteria-based media activity, to further an agenda of some party or other. Seldom is there evidence of objective, sceptical analysis of the assumptions, allegations or conclusions advanced by the authorities. They wouldn't tell us lies after all would they? Sadly they can and do.

Whether they have done so again in this case, can only be decided when what reliable information there is - usually photographs and video with additional witness statements - has been carefully considered.

We have to realise that in this time of 'muslim terrorist threat' from an organisation (ISIS) that we now know was largely created and supported by countries forming the NATO block, everything must be viewed against the backdrop of foreign policy objectives in the Middle East - at the moment Syria - for which a public sense of fear and hatred is an essential attribute. Both at Boston and now San Bernardino, consequent clamour are consistent with a pattern of misrepresentation.

In the most recent case, Trump helps to notch up the antipathy. Virtually all the media channels present not fact but emotion in their reporting. To challenge the evidence is rejected as either unpatriotic or unhinged - the famous 'conspiracy theorist' put-down, so common since the criminal fraud of 9/11.

So it is worth taking note of those that bravely - yes bravely - raise sensible, logical unanswered doubts about the latest massacre event in San Bernardino as raised here by Kevin Barrett of 'Veterans Today' at: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/san-bernadino-another-false-flag-guest.html

Even I would wish to question how the dead suspects found themselves hand-cuffed after the claimed shoot out with police, or how in another photograph a claimed ammunition belt with associated bullet casings lie neatly and un-blood stained, surrounded by markers, on the road surface outside the vehicle, but not it would appear in contemporaneous aerial footage?

These, are inconvenient questions that, as in many other similar cases, never seem to be given a rational or convincing explanation. They should be, because foreign war and domestic repression, turn on them."

Fear on Demand
Guest Column by Stephen Lendman from the Paul Craig Roberts site here: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/12/13/fear-on-demand/ 
The San Bernardino Shootings Were A Black Op US Government Operation
Three separate eyewitnesses saw three tall male caucasians carry out the executions.
Syed Rizwan and Tashfeen Malik were chosen to be the patsies and murdered so that they could not contradict the concocted accusation against them.
As long as insoucient, gullible Americans accept such implausible oficial stories as 9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombing, and the San Bernardino shootings, the American public will continue to be complicit in official US black op murders of innocent people.
Read Lendman’s report:
When Americans fell for the obviously false official 9/11 story, the black op inhumans realized that they can get away with anything. These murderers are enabled by the witless American public. Expect more such operations. They are all a part of Fear On Demand.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.