It’s really not though.
marjorie steele

“…a planned false flag op at worst.”

There are few times my eyes see something close to absolute but this is one occasion because that is not a possible scenario for one very straightforward reason:

The terrorist was a Caucasian non-Muslim.

Any time we suffer a terrorist attack you can always count on it being referenced as an isolated incident or a call of Jihad based nothing but the perceived religion of the terrorists. What is the FBI mishap based upon?

If Isis claims responsibility and the terrorist is seen as a Muslim people automatically claim it was a Jihad with no evidence and they say Isis was not lying. In this attack Isis claimed responsibility but nobody believed it or demanded to see evidence.

Unless new information surfaces Paddock’s motive will be listed as unknown yet when terrorists like Adkisson and Rooff literally tell the world their motives were based on religion, politics, or race, which qualifies as the most straightforward definition of terrorism, we ignore it because otherwise the cards be burning down. Lanza, like Paddock, never gave a motive they will never been called terrorists.

As soon as San Bernardino happened it was almost immediately declared terrorism but there was no evidence of a motive, just like Paddock and Lanza. In fact, even today the FBI investigation closes by stating motive was not known but we still blame Muslims.

On 12/02 the FBI had no motive.

On 12/03 they said it was investigated as terrorism but never actually provided supporting evidence and without a declaration, it is near impossible to give a motive within 24 hours on an attack of that magnitude.

The laughable justification for investigating as terrorism was based on a FB post supposedly written my Malik supporting Islam and they said they found it just one day after the attack.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.