Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
It's me hello

BREAKING: MASS SHOOTING IN ORLANDO GAY NIGHTLUB

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, baradar_jackson said:

 

Bro I'm sorry but I just don't respect that distinction.

 

The Syria war is no less a war of aggression than the Iraq war. If anything, it's far worse. The nature of this war means that it can just continue perpetually. So even though there are no large-scale set piece battles, the level of ruination in the country is as much if not more, than in the case of Iraq. And all of these terrorist mercenaries are bought and sold by the US and Israel, so it surely is not a civil war. It is a war of aggression.

 

Most liberals just say: we need to make sure our help reaches the "moderate rebels." They may as well say that they need to make sure our help reaches the unicorn legion. The existence of moderate rebels in Syria may as well be a Greek myth.

 

Of course, there are still a small, insignificant number of true blue leftists remaining in the US, mostly consisting of excommunicated intellectuals. But we're talking about liberals here, not leftists. There are not enough leftists in the US for their opinions to matter when making such a comparison.

As I said, I highly doubt the average liberal on the street who votes democrat is even moderately informed on Syria. The prevailing attitude doesn't seem to be one of helping the rebels but of indifference and confusion.  Most of them probably view all the parties involved unfavorably and persist that the US shouldn't be getting involved in Syria at all, even though it already has. This distinction is important since the polls show that the support for 'intervention' in Syria even for the alleged use of chemical weapons has been very low, it is even lower than the support figures for entering Iraq, which prompted mass protests.  I wouldn't call that hypocrisy.  This is a huge chunk of the US population, and we should acknowledge that despite the liberal propaganda (which I agree is more sophisticated than the Republicans), a large segment of the population continues to hold positions to the left of the governing party.  On issue after issue, whether it is NAFTA, health care, foreign aid, taxes or these so called interventions to overthrow dictators, public opinion tends to drift to the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, repenter said:

False flag or not, innocent people are getting shot all the damn time nowadays with increased frequency. The world is just going down the drain....

 

Alls I know is: there's a lot more innocent Iraqis, Yemenis, and Syrians being shot and bombed to bits than there are fruitcakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, repenter said:

False flag or not, innocent people are getting shot all the damn time nowadays with increased frequency. The world is just going down the drain....

The faked dead of Sandy Hoax would like a word with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, baradar_jackson said:

 

Alls I know is: there's a lot more innocent Iraqis, Yemenis, and Syrians being shot and bombed to bits than there are fruitcakes.

Those who died in US are in no way responsible for those who die in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, or Afghanistan. If people in those countries are dumb enough to kill their own then why the gay community in Florida should pay for the stupidities of those from far off? Why arent there people dying in Iran? Stupid Sunnis do their stupid things and then they hold the entire world hostage and try to make everyone feel guilty.
I say its Muslim stupidity that is responsible for Muslim suffering.

Those who say FalseFlag are either asleep or live in lala land. If it were to be a false flag why would it come out that Mateen was a regular, that he was on a gay dating site or.....? this in itself debunks the very premise of Falseflag.

Fact of the matter is that he was a homo...most likely molested as a kid as most Pashtuns are...and couldnt come in terms with this fact and went postal. 
These guys are from Mateen's clan and most such dudes are card carrying members of the Taliban.

4161giant.jpg

Taliban_02.jpg

taliban10.jpg

Taliban_03.jpg

PAR228716.jpg

taliban-2.jpg

Edited by Wahdat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wahdat

From your post I get the impression that you see false flag proponents as nothing more than silly, ill-informed babblers who do nothing but browse conspiracy sites all day. Let me tell you this: we are perfectly lucid. And the amount of discrepancies regarding the official narrative are emerging rapidly. How the heck do you not know about them? Or is it that you consciously choose to ignore them? Either way, the only one asleep here is you.

I bet you still believe the official 9/11 report lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2016 at 8:45 PM, Mir Ali said:

I don't know what to call it. But I won't use the word 'terror'. Because the definition of terrorism is not clear to me. If terrorism simply means killing innocent people, why wasn't Adolf Hitler ever called a terrorist? Why are George bush and Tony Blair never called terrorists for killing innocent iraqi people?

Why are a lot of Muslims confused on the definition of terrorism? 

All it takes is a simple search...

Cambridge Dictionary: Violent action for political purposes

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Oxford Dictionary: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

Macmillan Dictionary: The use of violence to achieve political aims

Collins Dictionary: The use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something. 

This is why every attack perpetrated or affiliated by ISIS (eg, Paris bombing, Orlando shooting) is classified as terrorism. After all, ISIS has a political aim of conquering at the very least, the Muslim world and deterring foreign powers from stopping them.

Edited by Ali666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wahdat said:

Those who say FalseFlag are either asleep or live in lala land. If it were to be a false flag why would it come out that Mateen was a regular, that he was on a gay dating site or.....? this in itself debunks the very premise of Falseflag.

I cannot reply to you better than @Vestige did, but I will have my say regardless.

Let's establish one thing. The mainstream media in the West has a penchant for propagating monstrous lies ever since its inception. On that basis alone, anything you receive from such news agencies should be taken with a grain of salt. They already set major precedents when they spun tales like the Gulf of Tonkin incident (now admitted to never have happened), the garbage official 9/11 narrative (my beliefs are backed up by facts and evidence, along with the support of 2200+ scientists, architects and fellow engineers), and the "ERMAGARD Saddam has WMDS! We must march into Iraq and liberate it!!!111one1!!". I only mentioned three examples even though there is enough to write a frikkin book.

All that said, here's what we know about the Pulse shooting (if there ever was one):-

-So far, no CCTV footage from either inside the club or its neighboring establishments showing the alleged perpetrator, Omar Mateen, entering the club in the same night has been released to the public. No police cruiser dashcam footage has been shared either. Keep in mind, the standoff allegedly went down for three whole hours. There's literally nothing but apparently edited and broken footage from outside the club which raises further suspicions. Take this one for example:-

Two things to note about this video:-

-The wounded are being carried BACK TO THE PULSE NIGHTCLUB. No one in their right minds would do that.

-The guy being carried, first shown at the 0:08 mark, then gets dropped on the ground by his friends at around 0:18 and starts joking with them.

HOW THE HELL DOES THIS NOT AROUSE SUSPICIONS IN YOU PEOPLE???

Shame on you and your ignorance for calling us delusional. Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ali666 said:

Why are a lot of Muslims confused on the definition of terrorism? 

All it takes is a simple search...

Cambridge Dictionary: Violent action for political purposes

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Oxford Dictionary: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

Macmillan Dictionary: The use of violence to achieve political aims

Collins Dictionary: The use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to do something. 

This is why every attack perpetrated or affiliated by ISIS (eg, Paris bombing, Orlando shooting) is classified as terrorism. After all, ISIS has a political aim of conquering at the very least, the Muslim world and deterring foreign powers from stopping them.

Then why wasn't US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya called an act of terrorism?

I'm not telling that ISIS are not terrorists. If you go in terms of the definition, US and it's western allies are also terrorists.

Why these double standards by the international community?

Look bro, all I'm trying to say is that some people have blended the word terrorist with Islam.

Give me an instance where a non Muslim criminal was called a terrorist. 

This how they run things in US and the west.

They determine the religion of the person, if he is a muslim then he is a terrorist. If he is a non Muslim he is mentally ill. 

Edited by Mir Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mir Ali said:

Look bro, all I'm trying to say is that some people have blended the word terrorist with Islam.

Give me an instance where a non Muslim criminal was called a terrorist. 

This how they run things in US and the west.

They determine the religion of the person, if he is a muslim then he is a terrorist. If he is a non Muslim he is mentally ill. 

Here's a recent example: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-man-accused-of-running-b-c-terror-training-camp-1.2923499

And here are a few examples of non-Muslim terrorist organizations:

International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) aims to establish an independent homeland for the Sikhs of India in Khalistan.

Dashmesh Regiment aims to create a Sikh homeland called Khalistan via armed struggle and is responsible for several terrorist bombings of civilian targets in India during the 1980s and 1990s.

Why do you think members of these organizations are labelled as terrorists? Is it because of their religion - Sikhism? Or is it because of their violence aimed for a political goal?

Why do you think Dylan Roof and Elliot Rodger are NOT called terrorists? Is it because they're non-Muslims? Or is it because they DON'T have a political goal? Hint Hint...terrorism is defined by "violent action for political purposes" (Cambridge Dictionary). After all, Dylan was motivated by racism and Elliot was motivated by misogyny. 

Edited by Ali666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ali666 said:

Here's a recent example: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-man-accused-of-running-b-c-terror-training-camp-1.2923499

And here are a few examples of non-Muslim terrorist organizations:

International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) aims to establish an independent homeland for the Sikhs of India in Khalistan.

Dashmesh Regiment aims to create a Sikh homeland called Khalistan via armed struggle and is responsible for several terrorist bombings of civilian targets in India during the 1980s and 1990s.

Why do you think members of these organizations are labelled as terrorists? Is it because of their religion - Sikhism? Or is it because of their violence aimed for a political goal?

Why do you think Dylan Roof and Elliot Rodger are NOT called terrorists? Is it because they're non-Muslims? Or is it because they DON'T have a political goal? Hint Hint...terrorism is defined by "violent action for political purposes" (Cambridge Dictionary). After all, Dylan was motivated by racism and Elliot was motivated by misogyny. 

You can only find these rare instances. You can't go beyond that. Or can u?

Talking about India, the naxals operating in central India are called Maoists and NOT terrorists. Now please dont tell me that they don't have a political ambition. But the pro independence organisations in Kashmir are labelled terrorists. Either call both terrorists or don't use the word at all.

Looks like you are an Indian, don't talk about your country. You have no justice there, the killers of Gandhi roam free till date. Your current head of the country is accused of killing many Muslims.

Don't give me these one or two instances, and why only refer Cambridge dictionary? There are other dictionaries and definitions too.

And you still haven't given me an answer as to why no one calls US and its western allies as terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mir Ali said:

You can only find these rare instances. You can't go beyond that. Or can u?

Talking about India, the naxals operating in central India are called Maoists and NOT terrorists. Now please dont tell me that they don't have a political ambition. But the pro independence organisations in Kashmir are labelled terrorists. Either call both terrorists or don't use the word at all.

Looks like you are an Indian, don't talk about your country. You have no justice there, the killers of Gandhi roam free till date. Your current head of the country is accused of killing many Muslims.

Don't give me these one or two instances, and why only refer Cambridge dictionary? There are other dictionaries and definitions too.

And you still haven't given me an answer as to why no one calls US and its western allies as terrorists.

Let's not get side-tracked. You argued that the media only calls Muslim criminals, "terrorists", and I just gave you a recent example where they also used the label on Sikhs. My point is that political ambition, not religion, is the deciding factor.  

I would rather talk about whether certain individuals, not countries (eg, US) are terrorists because I intend to travel to US and other countries soon. Let's keep nations out of it. 

P.S. I'm not an Indian

23 minutes ago, Mir Ali said:

why only refer Cambridge dictionary? There are other dictionaries and definitions too.

Dude, in my previous reply, I already gave you this info:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Oxford Dictionary: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

Macmillan Dictionary: The use of violence to achieve political aims

Collins Dictionary: The use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achievepolitical aims or to force a government to do something. 

Edited by Ali666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ali666 said:
24 minutes ago, Ali666 said:

Let's not get side-tracked. You argued that the media only calls Muslim criminals, "terrorists", and I just gave you a recent example where they also used the label on Sikhs. My point is that political ambition, not religion, is the deciding factor.  

I would rather talk about whether certain individuals, not countries (eg, US) are terrorists because I intend to travel to US and other countries soon. Let's keep nations out of it. 

P.S. I'm not an Indian

Dude, in my previous reply, I already gave you this info:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Oxford Dictionary: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

Macmillan Dictionary: The use of violence to achieve political aims

Collins Dictionary: The use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achievepolitical aims or to force a government to do something. 

First of all, the organisation you talked about is no more existent. Like I said before, the examples you gave are just rare incidents. I told you to give more examples, but you didn't because I knew u googled it. I've told you before on another thread to not use Wikipedia as the reference, you didn't learn.

Secondly, I still stand by what I said earlier. Religion is the deciding factor for determining whether a person is terrorist or not. 

If they truly followed the definition, Adolf Hitler should have been declared a terrorist long time back.

You don't want to talk about countries, fine no problem. Let's talk about individuals, why don't you call George Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel sharon as terrorists?

Where's justice brother?

The US generals who were involved in Iraq war are never called terrorists, but major general Qassen soleimani of Iran is a globally designated terrorist. Where's your definition and justice now?

Regarding the media, I'm ready to have a debate any time regarding the hypocrisy of the media. Let me know if you are interested. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mir Ali said:

Regarding the media, I'm ready to have a debate any time regarding the hypocrisy of the media. Let me know if you are interested. 

What about the news article I sent you? 

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-man-accused-of-running-b-c-terror-training-camp-1.2923499

It was reported hardly a month ago. Are you going to ignore it just because it's rare?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ali666 said:

What about the news article I sent you? 

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-man-accused-of-running-b-c-terror-training-camp-1.2923499

It was reported hardly a month ago. Are you going to ignore it just because it's rare?

 

Yes I read it. I'm not ignoring anything. I still say the same thing, these are rare cases. The examples you have given me only involve that Sikh organisation and the Indian government. Have other countries declared it as a terrorist organisation? 

I don't think so, even if I give you thousand more instances, you may not agree with me for reasons well known. But one day, you'll realise and believe it my friend. 

You'll realise that the so called media is biased and hypocritical.

May Allah(swt) guide us all in the right path.

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Removed photo.

EDIT#2: Can't re-upload the photo in the same post for some reason... Perhaps some mods can look into this if it's a problem!

Edited by Praetorius
Just realized the photo had inappropriate text. I'll repost after editing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Praetorius said:

@Vestige Bro did you see this video? I burst out laughing because of Red's commentary at 1:17 :clap:

 

You got me hooked in , i went and searched for some stuff about this incident as false flag.

This is the best collection of articles written about it: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/06/12/orlando/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are releasing the transcripts of the alleged 911 call, but it doesn't include any reference to any kind of political or religious allegiance.  But transcripts can easily be fabricated anyway.  I think the purpose is just to let people have whichever doubts they want to have.  Maybe there was a call, maybe there wasn't.  Maybe the psychopath pledged allegiance to ISIS, maybe he didn't.  Maybe one guy shot all these people and held off more than 100 armed police for three hours, and maybe that's not the way it went down.  I assume we will never know.  

And pardon the link to faux news. It's the first one I saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, notme said:

They are releasing the transcripts of the alleged 911 call, but it doesn't include any reference to any kind of political or religious allegiance.  But transcripts can easily be fabricated anyway.  I think the purpose is just to let people have whichever doubts they want to have.  Maybe there was a call, maybe there wasn't.  Maybe the psychopath pledged allegiance to ISIS, maybe he didn't.  Maybe one guy shot all these people and held off more than 100 armed police for three hours, and maybe that's not the way it went down.  I assume we will never know.  

The bolded part is the least plausible part of this "shooting". So many gun experts and ex-military people have come forward telling how it's almost impossible that he didn't provide the people in the club an opportunity to jump him while he was reloading. 

If it did go down the way they say it did, they would have released concrete CCTV footage, uncut and unedited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Praetorius said:

The bolded part is the least plausible part of this "shooting". So many gun experts and ex-military people have come forward telling how it's almost impossible that he didn't provide the people in the club an opportunity to jump him while he was reloading. 

If it did go down the way they say it did, they would have released concrete CCTV footage, uncut and unedited.

I have a problem with the way the story is told.  It seems like the majority of the deaths would be by "friendly fire" if the story is as the media reports.  There are a lot of inconsistencies too.  They can't even report consistently what kind of gun was used - I've seen a few different ones mentioned.  And that's a simple piece of data that isn't easy to confuse.  I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but most of the time I don't actually believe them.  This time the story makes so little sense that I'm absolutely certain we aren't getting the real story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Praetorius said:

@Vestige Bro did you see this video? I burst out laughing because of Red's commentary at 1:17 :clap:

 

:hahaha: Bruh, his commentary's are GOLD. I remember watching one of his documentaries (I think it was the Illuminati/NWO one), and there was a part where I just couldn't stop laughing! 

U serious joker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

14 hours ago, Mir Ali said:

Give me an instance where a non Muslim criminal was called a terrorist. 

This how they run things in US and the west.

They determine the religion of the person, if he is a muslim then he is a terrorist. If he is a non Muslim he is mentally ill. 

Here is an example of the United States government calling a non-Muslim a terrorist.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing

And, if you look on the right of the web page you will see links to other non-Muslim violent acts categorized as terrorism.

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vestige said:

@Wahdat

From your post I get the impression that you see false flag proponents as nothing more than silly, ill-informed babblers who do nothing but browse conspiracy sites all day. Let me tell you this: we are perfectly lucid. And the amount of discrepancies regarding the official narrative are emerging rapidly. How the heck do you not know about them? Or is it that you consciously choose to ignore them? Either way, the only one asleep here is you.

I bet you still believe the official 9/11 report lol.

Why is there no Iranian-falseflag? or Chinese related false flag? or Russian? or Indian? or...shia falseflag.. ? Why only Sunni ones?
Mass shootings is a fact of American life. Why is it that all other mass shootings are acts of deranged individuals but when it comes to the Muslim perpetrators it becomes a falseflag or a conspiracy? Is it because us Muslims are so sane and so wonderful where we do not burn schools, sell women hostages to slavery, cut each others throats, blow up mosques and shrines and markets and....? 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Whether you like it or not, sunnism = terrorism. It is so in the US, it is so in France, Belgium, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wahdat I can't say what's true. I just doubt the reported story because of its inconsistency. When the official story is so full of holes, people will believe whatever fits their worldview - and maybe that is the intention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wahdat said:

Why is there no Iranian-falseflag? or Chinese related false flag? or Russian? or Indian? or...shia falseflag.. ? Why only Sunni ones?
Mass shootings is a fact of American life. Why is it that all other mass shootings are acts of deranged individuals but when it comes to the Muslim perpetrators it becomes a falseflag or a conspiracy? Is it because us Muslims are so sane and so wonderful where we do not burn schools, sell women hostages to slavery, cut each others throats, blow up mosques and shrines and markets and....? 

Wake up and smell the coffee. Whether you like it or not, sunnism = terrorism. It is so in the US, it is so in France, Belgium, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Yemen......

Talk about a massive appeal to ignorance and your incredibly illogical conclusion.

This is what you sound like:-
Wise 20 Year Old - You can’t demonstrate that there aren’t Martians living in caves on the surface of Mars so it is sensible for me to accept there are.

Who here has said that ALL Sunni-related events are false flag events? Are you listening to yourself? And why should I take you seriously, when you dismiss all the evidence suggesting how this appears to be a staged event?

Most of the real events take place in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Yemen. The ones in the US have almost entirely been discredited by multiple independent (non-Muslim) journalists. Even the events in France and Belgium have raised suspicions over their authenticity. 

YOU should wake up and smell the coffee. Or you can stay asleep like the rest of the sheeple. 

Edited by Praetorius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, notme said:

@Wahdat I can't say what's true. I just doubt the reported story because of its inconsistency. When the official story is so full of holes, people will believe whatever fits their worldview - and maybe that is the intention. 

We should look at the Iranian nuclear program and how it was portrayed under different lights to learn that it is awfully easy to negate truth and cast doubt over it than otherwise. Yes there are inconsistencies that in due time will no doubt come to light...things such as 'friendly fire' or 'cctv photage'...... that would embarrass the authorities. But to say that it is a false flag is going a bit too far and closing one's eyes to reality.
You should see the facebook pages of Afghans....they all celebrate it as its the second coming. People from all social strata, whether they are govt officials, doctors, or engineers take pride in this act of terror as if there is no gay in Afghanistan. So Mateen's mindset is not unique or in minority. There are millions of Mateens out there... give them guns, failure, and a weak state of mind and you get such horrific events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wahdat said:

You should see the facebook pages of Afghans....they all celebrate it as its the second coming. People from all social strata, whether they are govt officials, doctors, or engineers take pride in this act of terror as if there is no gay in Afghanistan. So Mateen's mindset is not unique or in minority. There are millions of Mateens out there... give them guns, failure, and a weak state of mind and you get such horrific events.

Remember how 9/11 was celebrated across the world? Does that mean they were directly responsible for it? Guess what, only the US government, CIA and MOSSAD were implicated in those attacks. What the hell are you on about man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Praetorius said:

Ask and ye shall receive:-

 

so where do you put Mateen's actions here?
Wouldnt it have been better for the falseflag guys to get an Iranian shia do such a thing? or even better get an Iranian shia go on a shooting spree killing sunni worshippers in a mosque? Why has there not been such a falseflag till now?

I am not denying the use of 'covert ops' in international relations as its part and parcel of wars throughout history...but to brush the recent events which serves no clear objective is going a step too into the lalaland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Praetorius said:


Who here has said that ALL Sunni-related events are false flag events? Are you listening to yourself? And why should I take you seriously, when you dismiss all the evidence suggesting how this appears to be a staged event?

Most of the real events take place in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Yemen. The ones in the US have almost entirely been discredited by multiple independent (non-Muslim) journalists. Even the events in France and Belgium have raised suspicions over their authenticity. 

 

You are right...the French and Belgian attackers were Bhuddist monks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wahdat said:

so where do you put Mateen's actions here?
Wouldnt it have been better for the falseflag guys to get an Iranian shia do such a thing? or even better get an Iranian shia go on a shooting spree killing sunni worshippers in a mosque? Why has there not been such a falseflag till now?

I am not denying the use of 'covert ops' in international relations as its part and parcel of wars throughout history...but to brush the recent events which serves no clear objective is going a step too into the lalaland.

You are under the assumption that the average American can differentiate between a Shia and a Sunni, Iraq and Iran (you'd be surprised as to how many think these two countries are one and the same), or even ISIS and Hezbollah. You give them way too much credit. I've personally spoken to many ignorant Americans who didn't know squat about the subtleties of the conflicts occurring in the Middle East and Asia.

You think the average American, after digesting the garbage that's being presented to them, will just up and say "oh the perp was a Sunni Moozlim, the Eye-Rayni Shiites don't got nothin' to do with this"? To them, Islam is a massive, monolithic umbrella with no such thing as diversity. So yes, Iran does get hurt. Sorry you don't see it that way with your delusional appeal to ignorance clouding your judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wahdat said:

You are right...the French and Belgian attackers were Bhuddist monks.

The Paris "attacks" have been thoroughly debunked as a terror drill that went live and conveniently reported as an actual terrorist attack.

Belgian attacks? You mean the one in Brussels? The one where news channels used footage from another attack from years back, edited to make it look authentic?

It's YOU who's living in La La Land. Stay there please, I don't want your cognitive dissonance corrupting us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...