Top Analyst Thinks San Bernardino Massacre was False Flag

You're right sort of I was surprised that Obama admitted that Islamic terrorism is a threat. And all the blah blah blah smooth sounding garbage he read off the teleprompter to camoflage his intention to deprive Americans of due process using the "no fly list" I mean who can argue with that?

It's just common sense to use a government watch list that no one is even allowed to know whether they are on it or not or how one gets on it or how one gets off it to deprive Americans of due process? How insane is it to question using one measure that deprives Americans of due process to deprive more Americans of due process?

It's just a common sense gun safety measure that we desperately need to stop people from killing other people. Who can argue with that?

How many people are on this list? How many lists are there? How does one get on a list? How does one get off a list? I thought we were allowed to face our accusers. Who are the accusers? What standard are they using to accuse us?

I know I know it's more question begging. Never mind these are the questions begging to be asked that you won't ask.

I don't care if you talk about the fifth amendment or not I just wanted you to know that it exists even though you'll probably deny it does just like you deny all the evidence that the FBI creates terror plots and swoops in to bust their own patsies just in time to wag their tails and act like our saviors.

No you didn't because I never said ALL terrorist plots were false flags. You might have dreamed that I said that but I never said ALL terrorist plots were false flags. The majority of them yes but not ALL of them. And the overwhelming amount of evidence that you choose to ignore supports what I said.

Yep you sure did and I know you well enough to understand that you would pull another one of your classic Saul Alinsky type attacks on me instead of addressing the questions or evidence I put forward.

Just like you pulled a Saul Alinsky type attack on Alex Jones by blaming him for saying it was a flag when he has repeatedly said he didn't believe it was a false flag.

I don't know if this was a false flag or not. All I know is there are questions and anomalies the corporate media refuses to investigate and eventually relegate to the memory hole. Like so many other "mass shootings" and "terror attacks" that have taken place in this country.

You'd make for wonderful mainstream talking head. You believe what they say and demonize people that have questions about what they say and refuse to report just like they do.

You do your Saul Alinsky thing when you accuse me of being crazy for believing the banks are above government even though the evidence and the Bible itself says the borrower is servant to the lender.

You just can't seem to get it through your head the government borrows money from a private international banking cartel made up of private corporations and we the people who are forced to pay back all this debt aren't even allowed to know who they are!

You deny that corporations control congress even while their army of lobbyists are invading Washington DC! You deny that corporations formulate foreign policy even though it's plain for anyone with half a brain and a fourth grade reading level to see who sponsors (funds) all the think thanks!

And you call me crazy? Roflmao

Lie, make things up, accuse people of saying things they didn't say, deny that evidence exists. stretch the truth to the breaking point, accusing one person of saying something another person said, acting like you proved something when you haven't. . . Classic ITL - isms. Or are they Alinsky - isms that ITL has adopted and made his own?

 

You mean <snip> what you have no answer for?

You said . . . "You asked me to prove that you said all terrorist plots were false flags. I gave you a link where you said EXACTLY that."

You said it so you own it. So now you have the link show me where I said ALL terrorist plots were false flags.

Show me where I said that EXACTLY in that thread or any other.. I'll wait . . .

 

While you're waiting go up and review the evidence I posted that ITL pretends doesn't exist.

You act like you and a few others are the only ones on this board allowed to throw out accusations without having to prove them. Well, this time I'm playing by the baptistborg rules.

And those rules say I don't have to prove anything I say because I have more credibility than you! You wacky mainstreamer!

 

Hmmm. That's telling. ITL came back to give me a negative rating. But didn't post a quote where I said what he said I said EXACTLY.

Typical. The baptistborg Alinskys and Sunsteins don't like having their own tactics used against them apparently.

Guess ITL needs more time to search for something I never said. Roflmao

Ok. Whatever take your time, I'll wait a bit longer.



Hey BTW ITL what is your mentor Cass Sunstein up to these days besides composing talking points for you?

 

Hows your pal Saul did he ever sign your copy of "rules for radicals"? Roflmao

 

According to ITL I said "all terror plots are false flags". Never mind the "proof" he provided is a title to an article I posted that says "Every Major Terror Plot In U.S. Was Contrived". That's not EXACTLY the same as "all terror plots are false flags". But that doesn't matter to ITL.

Once again ITL is trying to put words in my mouth.

I posted several articles from the mainstream press outlining how the FBI has contrived terror plots by finding half witted idiots giving them the plans, the means and the locations to carry out terror attacks only to swoop in and bust them at the last minute to "save us from the terrorists". And the headlines read . . . Hoorah our heros!

But ITL doesn't want to address those mainstream news articles. He doesn't want to talk about what Judge Napalitano said in the video. Instead of addressing this evidence ITL choose to ignore it. By labeling it a "diatribe". That's what people who claim they are "credible" like ITL do. They ignore the evidence and attack the people providing it. That's classic Alinisky folks.

Then there's Matt who can call a man a "pathological liar" without providing any proof then complains and acts like I have to obey different rules than he does. "Poncho accused me without proof he's not credible I'm the only one who can accuse people without proof".

If Matt does it it proves his credibility but if I do the same thing it proves I'm not credible. Talk about turning logic on it's head.

These are the self proclaimed "credible ones". Let me tell you folks their "credibility" depends on you ignoring the facts and evidence as they do.

Who needs liberals to argue with when we have "conservatives" who can apply Alinsky's "rules for radicals" as good or better than the liberals?

Incredible.

As far as Alex Jones goes. He makes mistakes, he gets things wrong sometimes, he acts like his hair is on fire and he sells products to support his operations! How dare he support his own operation by selling things?

And to this I say so what. Alex Jones gets on air and proves he's human. Big deal it's not against the law to be human. This whole "oh Alex claimed this and it didn't come true" is ITL's best argument? It's a joke. Who wouldn't predict Obama would use his speech to declare his intention to enact more unconstitutional gun laws? Which he did in fact do. So what "a large chunk" of his speech turned out to be camouflage to trick people into overlooking his admission that he wants to use an unconstitutional measure to reduce our second amendment right to bear arms to defend ourselves more?

Oh no we can't talk about the fifth amendment, that's a "diatribe". We can't look at Obama's record of rule by Executive Order, and his anti gun agenda that's a "diatribe". We can't look at or discuss the mainstream news articles that shows the FBI has been contriving terrorist plots to toot their own horn and make us all believe there is a terrorist under every bed in America and only they and bigger more intrusive government can save us . No, that's a "diatribe".

Incredible.

 

Incredible. Any school kid knows that ALL means ALL.

ALL means . . . : the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of: every member or part of, the whole number or sum of.

ALL means ALL.

"Every major terror plot in the US" Means every major terror plot in the US. It does not mean every single terror plot in the whole wide world and for ALL times as you'd have people to believe.

ALL does not mean, some. ALL does not mean a lot. ALL does not mean most. ALL does not mean the majority. ALL does not mean 99.9999% of . . . ALL means ALL.

I bet you still don't get it. Laugh

This is what ITL does when he doesn't want to discuss the evidence folks. Which in this case are ALL mainstream news articles and one video from Fox News which is also a mainstream source. It's called, DIstracting, deflecting, distorting.

ITL is an expert at it. He's also an expert of accusing others of doing what he does.

Is that another Alinsky trick you've adopted? Seems like something Saul would do.

Now watch other members of the baptistborg join in to defend one of their own folks.

ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK! Laugh