The recent shooting in San Bernardino, California, which resulted in 14 fatalities in a center for disabled people, sheds an enormous amount of doubts, suspicions and contradictions that everybody should know.
In this article we collect 10 key aspects that invite suspicion that the US government is lying about the shooting, now described as an Islamist attack.
But above all, we must emphasize the last question: a key question that everyone should be given the wave of Islamist terrorism looming over us ...
As mentioned, growing doubts and contradictions about the shooting in San Bernardino, California, which resulted in 14 fatalities.
One of the lawyers in the case, said bluntly that the official version of what happened in San Bernadino "does not fit".
A recent article in Veterans Today (VT), presents 10 questions that invite American's suspect that the government is lying about what happened:
1 If the "terrorists", Syed Rizwan Tashfeen Farook Malik and his wife had started a shootout with police during their flight to the black minivan, then why the windows of the van were uploaded? It is difficult to understand how they could maneuver to shoot "long" weapons such as an AR-15 from inside the vehicle.
That makes researchers suspect Veterans Today, that might have been executed by police in cold blood and that no shooting came not occur.
2. According VT, both terrorists can be seen in several killed and handcuffed images. I supposed that initiated a shootout with police while handcuffed and shooting through the windows shut your minivan?
It is obvious that they should be handcuffed in their own car, so were handcuffed post.
We did not invent: a photo published in many newspapers, including the Daily Mail, shows Farook's body handcuffed on the ground, where he was allegedly beaten by officers.
What was handcuffed after death? For what reason? Were they afraid he became a zombie and rise again?
An event like this makes one suspect that both were only two scapegoats who were handcuffed and taken to the site for execution according to a perfectly scripted plan.
3. If the suspected terrorists really "had contact with al-Qaeda affiliate Al Shabaab group in Somalia" why the authorities did everything possible to catch them alive so they could be interrogated, and dismantle the alleged terrorist network? This same question arises whenever the authorities kill all the suspects and / or witnesses of terrorist acts.
4. If the couple really was part of a terrorist network, why the FBI opened his house and allowed the media pawed all items and belongings? The House of the "terrorists" should not be subject to a forensic study thoroughly, looking for any evidence that anyone should be able to approach?
In a surreal and unprecedented act, more like a market than a terrorist investigation, reporters crowded into the house of the suspects and groped around in complete acquiescence of the police.
Something simply amazing.
This is how describe the scene on the web "Truthsmedia"
In one of the craziest things you may never have seen dozens of "journalists" with camera crews razed a crime scene, trampled all, all objects touched without gloves and rummaged in the couple's belongings as if was a flea market or a sale of Black Friday, instead of the scene of ongoing research, what has been described as the deadliest shooting from Sandy Hook and a terrorist attack on US soil ISIS.This fact alone is a milestone in the history of broadcast journalism, which makes journalists and reporters definitely in a group of hungry scavengers any information, which is no longer necessary to respect any right or preserve development any ongoing investigation.
A person born in the 1950s and leading watching TV since then, has told us that he had never seen anything like it on TV. People were pushing each other, throwing things on the floor. The reporter was filming a lot of photographs showing people infants and children known to the couple, until another journalist warned that they should not show the kids on TV without parental permission. They looted a computer room and found a shredder with shredded still in the bin and they were saying that they could not believe that the police had not taken those papers as evidence to investigate the crime papers. Speaking of tests, reporters found ready on a table with all items confiscated by the FBI. Reporters also filmed the driver's license of women and other ID cards without hiding any personal information.
It is simply inconceivable that the authorities impelled something like this and that no viewer is challenged to the gravity of what happened.
After this, we need more suspicious to see that everything was orchestrated and that is pure TV Show?
5. One of the key questions that nobody does and that we indicated in the previous article. If this supposedly radical pair acted alone, who was the third armed man who reported several eyewitnesses at first?
In a telephone interview with CBS, one eyewitness, Sally Abdelmageed, described the events as follows:
"I heard shots from an automatic weapon. Very unusual. Why should we hear shots? When we looked out the window, there was a second burst of gunfire and saw a man fall to the ground. Then we looked and saw three men dressed entirely in black, with black military attire, vests and holding assault rifles. As the doors of the building one began shooting into the room "opened.
When the reporter asked about the appearance of the shooters, the witness replied:
"I could not see any face, wearing a black hat, black pants work, the type of those carrying large side pockets, long sleeves, gloves, huge assault rifles, belts with chargers; 3 suits were exactly the same "
The reporter asks again:
"Are you sure he saw three men? '
"Yes," says Abdelmageed.
"They seemed white. They had an athletic build and seemed high "
When you finish the interview, CBS reporter added: "Of course we now know that one of the suspects was a woman"
In the following video you can hear the full interview:
There are two aspects to note in this testimony.
On the one hand, the confidence with which the witness described as "three big men and athletic". That does not fit in any way with the vision of a short, plump as Malik seemed Tashfeen woman.
More strange looks he could deduce that they were white if they were fully dressed in black and with their faces covered. However, we must ask, what benefit would take the witness of lying in a time like this?
6. Actually, a woman of fifty meters tall and 60 kg weight can be charged with: a tactical vest, body armor, an assault rifle Smith & Wesson M & P .223 caliber caliber, multiple chargers, a handgun, pipe bomb and a detonator ... and then tweet his loyalty to the Islamic state exactly one minute after starting the attack?
Although it seems incredible and as published CNN: "She has written an oath of loyalty to the leader of ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook, while the shooting occurred, as reported three US officials familiar with the investigation told CNN "
7. Why the Inland Regional Center where the killing occurred conducting active shooter drills "every month" as reported by the Los Angeles Times?
In fact, according to the newspaper itself, the workers of the center, on hearing the first shots, they thought it was one of the many workouts to shootings had lived previously.
8. Is it just a coincidence that the only center in the world for people with disabilities who conducts active shooter drills each month, becomes precisely the place where just producing a mass shooting?
10. If this was really an act of "radical Islamic terrorism," why do the authors killed a lot of people with disabilities or people who work for their welfare, instead of guiding high-level individuals who are responsible for the attack for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims for decades?
THE KEY QUESTION
Has anyone ever wondered why never Islamic terrorists "suicide" attack against senior political leaders, business leaders, senior executives or executives of multinationals and always attack workers and poor people?
¿¡Why anyone so obvious QUESTION !?
Generally, the answer is customary to give in these cases is that these high charges or highly relevant are widely protected and it is impossible to reach them.
But is that true in all cases?
In the 3 videos that we then show how alternative journalists come into direct contact in the street with 3 of the most powerful and influential in the world in recent decades people: Jacob Rothschild, David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.
Did these elite bodyguards that protect them ultra-powers few youngsters who looked activists come to contact them directly?
These videos show that you can get to physically contact the highest elite without much trouble.
But nevertheless, no one asks why such characters never happens ... nothing nor nobody asks why there seem to be too afraid that something will happen to them.
Let's do an exercise, although it is very difficult for normal and peaceful people like us: let us for a moment in the skin of an Islamic terrorist who wants to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world".
Clearly, one of these terrorists seek two things: first, take revenge on those responsible for these crimes against Muslims and on the other maximum impact with their actions in Western society and achieve the highest recognition in their own society for the act committed.
If Islamic terrorists are willing to sacrifice their lives for revenge and are capable of the boldest attacks regardless of the consequences, why not try to kill the most powerful leaders or senior figures when attending a míting, a public meeting , a party or any kind of event?
The above videos show more than obvious form, which is not impossible, far from it.
In the unlikely event that these Islamic terrorists were to not reach the top leaders or elite, at least they would get to kill those who protect them and cause a feeling of paranoia and insecurity in the powerful. In addition, they would get widespread recognition and admiration in their own societies by attacking the "enemy spheres high". Would not it be logical that this was what he thought an avid for revenge terrorist?
Or at least, if they wanted to make a big propaganda impact in Western society, why not kill famous millionaires, moguls or celebrities from the world of heart, when they meet in a private club, on a yacht or at a party elite?
No, apparently, the great goal of terrorists is to kill humble citizens and workers, such as those who died in Madrid on March 11, when they went to work or study in trains.
Apparently, the terrorist leaders hate more people on the street or workers, to all those who have promoted the "crimes against Muslims" and take immediate and direct benefit of the looting and destruction of their countries.
Suspicious, is not it?
To be clear, we are not saying that Islamist terrorists do not exist. But it is clear that most of those stupid and fanatical suicide bombers brainwashed with the most modern techniques of mind control to commit attacks against simple ordinary citizens; and apparently, at any time, to the top leaders of these terrorist organizations they were true order the attack on elites.
Something as we have seen, they could do if they wanted to.
Perhaps why they should obey them?
It is very clear who is behind all this terrorism, who operated from the shadows and against whom is ultimately oriented.
Only those who prefer to remain blind, the more submissive directly or gullible idiots refuse to see it yet ...
Keywords: San Bernadino, shooting, Islamist terrorism, California, fatalities, terrorism, USA, United States