The propaganda has flooded headlines; fear and hatred for Islam is the motive and the means was the reported shootings in Garland, Texas two Sunday’s ago at a cartoon contest for the best depiction of the prophet Mohammed. As we’ve already stated, in agreement with VT, that it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck — a duck named Charlie Hebdo: Two so-called “radicalized Islamists” pull up to a public place in a car, get out and start shooting at people until the authorities take them down and out with return fire. Their motive: to get even with people who think it’s okay to draw Islam’s believed prophet, which is one of the worst sins in the Muslim religion. Garland, as has been pointed out by all sources reporting on it, was an exact replica of what happened in January in Paris and then a matter of weeks later in Denmark, both events proven to be false flag attacks to sway the Western public into supporting the unjust wars in the Middle East. The only thing missing this time was an appearance from Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the place of attack to declare the incident a direct attack against Judaism — as he did in France and Copenhagen. But we covered all this in our last article on the subject, so let’s move on.
- Garland Consensus In: False Flag Terror
- Another Questionable Terror Attack: Copenhagen Cafe and Synagogue Shootings
- Staged Terror Drills: Dane Predicts Denmark Attacks Before They Happened
- Paris Terror: Shooters Linked to President Sarkozy and FBI
- Ottawa False Flag: Old Bullet Holes In Parliament Shooting
A lengthy article in the New York Times gives the most in depth look at this situation thus far, and when the scattered pieces of information — more accurately disinformation — are pieced together in one narrative, it becomes even harder to believe this was anything but another badly scripted covert-op — a drill reported as “real life” — to spread further fear and hatred for Islam, in America in particular. Aside from being an obvious piece of propaganda to push that agenda, a few things right off the bat are counter to the objective reader’s instincts when studying the NY Times official report of what went down, why and how.
NY TIMES OFFICIAL CONTRADICTIONS
Out of the two men being reported as the — now dead — shooters, one has been thrust into the spotlight as the representative for the both of them: 30-year old Elton Simpson is the star of the show. Simpson, we are told, was detained by the FBI in 2010 under terrorism suspicion and then let go, and moreover he‘s also said to have been sending violence-fueled tweets back-and-forth with fighters from ISIS for the weeks leading up to Sunday’s attack. But for some reason, according to the NY Times, the FBI wasn’t keeping an eye on him during all these public ISIS communications. According to the Times, who apparently quotes an “unnamed FBI source,” the feds didn’t feel he was enough of a priority to investigate:
“There are so many like him that you have to prioritize your investigations.” —FBI Official, NY Times.
Not surprisingly in a made up story, the Times then completely changes its tune a few paragraphs later in the same report, quoting the same source, this time stating Simpson was under investigation for several months leading up to his reported death on Sunday; his social media was being watched; and he was even being personally surveilled at times:
“Several months ago, after Mr. Simpson began posting on Twitter about the Islamic State, the F.B.I. and the police in Phoenix opened a new investigation, officials said. As part of that inquiry, the authorities monitored his online postings and occasionally put him under surveillance.” —FBI Official, NY Times.
So was he under investigation or wasn’t he? Did they monitor his tweets or not? Both can’t be true. Another important question would be: with all the money spent and personal rights lost in the name of America’s anti-terrorism initiative, how does one tweet back and forth with active ISIS fighters about attacking Americans while the FBI monitors and still pulls off an attack? It makes little sense and is highly unlikely, especially considering the FBI was well aware of the cartoon contest being held a few hours drive from Simpson’s residence in Phoenix. Could the feds really have dropped the ball that bad? It’s doubtful. But, of course, anything is possible.
What of the reports of the shootings themselves? They sound very contrived, too. The NY Times tells us Simpson and his roommate, Nadir Soofi, drove to Texas to kill as many infidels taking part in the blasphemous cartoon contest as they could, but instead of rushing the Curtis Culwell Center to shoot the contestants inside, they apparently stopped outside, got out of their car and started shooting at the front of the building from quite some distance, hitting nobody but the ankle of an officer. Then, to add to that dubious decision, it is reported that despite being strapped with heavy artillery — assault rifles — and wearing a bullet proof vest each, a traffic guard, of all people, managed to kill both of the attackers without injury to himself using nothing but a service pistol. Really?
“…there was a large police presence at the event. When Mr. Simpson and Mr. Soofi pulled up… hopped out and opened fire from assault rifles, a… traffic officer returned fire with his pistol, killing both men despite the bulletproof vests they were wearing.” —NY Times.
None of this makes logical sense and is exactly what we would expect in an amateurish — planned — production. All of it explainable by beating incredible odds maybe, but it is very doubtful a man could kill two bulletproof men firing assault rifles and not take a hit in the process, not unless it’s in a movie about an American hero-cowboy from the wild west, which this particular narrative basically is. He would have had to have basically killed them in two perfect shots — one each. We can safely assume this traffic guard wasn’t the greatest marksman on planet earth, which is what it would take to pull off a double-kill with a pistol versus two machine guns and full sets of Kevlar.
But the inconsistencies aside, let’s pretend for a second that the New York Times’ series of events somehow are what really happened. Even if that were the case — which is unlikely — the way this event is being used to transmit Islamophobia is undeniable. The majority of the content in the articles filling the pages of the New York Times over Garland are top-to-bottom fear porn. They are designed to scare the shit out of Americans and goad them into thinking jihadists are everywhere recruiting members who will kill their families, so when they hear of this Arab country getting bombed, or that Arab country getting bombed they think, “good! The savage bastards deserve it!”
“’The[se] ISIS guys are talking to these wannabes on Twitter all day long.. It’s like the devil is sitting on their shoulder.”
“The onslaught of recruitment propaganda has multiplied the number of online enthusiasts for the Islamic State in the United States.”
“Shooting sprees [appear] to be coming into favor with jihadists, because they are simpler to pull off than a bombing.”
“[ISIS] threatened that future action against the perceived enemies of Islam would be ‘worse and more bitter.’” —Propaganda from the New York Times
Those four quotes tie the whole agenda to this media frenzy up neatly: ISIS is recruiting kids in your neighbourhood to plan random shootings that are only going to get worse. Be afraid, be very afraid! And support the “war on terror!” That’s the message that is being pushed in light of the Garland shooting, whether it happened organically or not, which real researchers into these mirrored events can say with confidence it did not.
The bombshell, in a manner of speaking, of this New York Times propaganda piece comes when we look into who provided the author — Scott Shanewith his info. His source is a man named Matthew Rosenberg. Would it surprise you that back in 2009 Matthew Rosenberg was identified by the newspaper The Nation as being a CIA operative and an Israeli intelligence agent? This is a fact. Israel, it seems, has played a huge part in this Garland event, albeit from behind the scenes, as usual. Other than the official story being told by a reported CIA/Mossad spy, the Mohammed cartoon contest was put on by Pamela Geller, a woman who runs several anti-Islam campaigns across America that are funded by politically connected Zionists from Israel. These are two huge red flags. Israel, after all, is the only country in the world in close proximity to the Arab nations America and the West have been demonizing and then destroying for the past 15 years — even longer, but we’ll focus on the “War on Terror” — and its influence over America’s foreign policy is stronger than any political party in the country.
Because Israel represents itself as a “Jewish nation,” anyone who speaks out against its ultra-racist, ultra-fascist, ultra-brutal Zionist regime is labelled an “anti-Semite,” but this is a cop-out that needs to be put to rest. Aside from the brutality and displacement inflicted on the Palestinians at the hands of the Zionist movement — which is a political ideology and does not officially represent Judaism — the Israeli lobby inside Washington, DC is behind every major decision the American government makes regarding foreign policy. Find that hard to believe? Obama’s administration alone is filled with dual Israeli/American citizens; so is Congress; so is the Senate:
With a Zionist putting on such a ridiculous, racist and instigative contest; and an outed Zionist Mossad agent writing the official report for a Zionist run news agency that feeds its news to the rest of them, to a researcher such as myself, this event further proves who’s really running global the show from behind the scenes and why. My advice? Don’t buy the rhetoric. Cut straight to the truth. It’s out there.
Thanks for reading! SHARE with the buttons below. 🙂