Warning Dog Owners

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

San Bernardino Shooting Story Shot Full of HOLES

Comp 1_00000
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.
How could the driver firing a rifle AR-15 type from inside the car without lowering the window?
How could the driver firing a rifle AR-15 type from inside the car without lowering the window?
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.
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.
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.
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?

3rd're capture twitter
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 "
CNN capture
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.
Capture Los Angeles Times
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?
9. If it was just a coincidence, so were the maneuvers of 9/11
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?

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

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Why We’re Sliding Towards to Third World War

Comp 2_00000
For months, several forecasters have warned of two major disasters: economic collapse and the outbreak of a world war.
Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts

For example, Paul Craig Roberts (former deputy Treasury secretary under President Reagan and former editor of the Wall Street Journal), believe that the accumulation of hostilities between the US and Russia only indicate one thing: "the war is coming."
David Stockman
David Stockman

Similarly, David Stockman, head of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan era, also has been publishing articles warning that the dispute between the US and Russia leading to World War II.
Gerald Celente
Gerald Celente

The trend forecaster Gerald Celente, who has been performing accurate financial forecasts and geopolitical decades, also tells us that the 3rd world war will begin soon.
Martin Armstrong
Martin Armstrong
The investment fund manager Martin Armstrong, who developed his own mathematical system of forecasting and accurately traced the "cycles of war" since 600 BC, anticipated the outbreak of major conflicts between now and the year 2020. Armstrong has recently written articles entitled "Why we go to war with Russia" and another saying, "Prepare for the Third World War."
Larry Edelson
Larry Edelson
The investment adviser Larry Edelson, who has long studied the "cycles of war", recently wrote:
"This year will also be hit by another gradual increase in the cycles of war. All part of the increase in the cycles of war, which will extend at least until 2020. "
Charles Nenner
Charles Nenner
The former technical analyst Goldman Sachs, Charles Nenner, who has done some great accurate predictions and has among its clients large hedge funds, banks, brokerages and billionaires, warns that there will be "a great war" which will fall the Dow Jones index to 5000 points (currently around 17000 points).
James Dines
James Dines
The investment adviser James Dines veteran, also predicts a war so big and momentous as the previous World Wars, beginning in the Middle East.
As we see, are many economists, analysts and "experts" who warn us of the outbreak of a major war.
But, why the world is moving so decisively toward war?
Possible causes are subject of discussion ...
Several causes are discussed below.
Martin Armstrong, who studies the economic and historical cycles and came to manage sovereign wealth funds worth several billions of dollars (before he was locked up in jail for possession of his secret method of economic forecasting), argues that war plans against Syria, are actually related to the level of debt and spending:
"The Syrian mess seems to have a lot of people queuing at the Capitol, when in the street, people cry not take any military action. But politicians are ignoring the people altogether. This suggests that in fact there is a secret agenda to achieve any goal that is beyond the reach of the public. The big problem is the debt and war is necessary to relieve the pressure to cut spending "

Armstrong argues that this was what caused Turkey to topple the Russian fighter plane on Syria:
"Behind what happened is the Obama Administration and pretend that Turkey had the right to defend its airspace not being attacked, it's just too much. All these people need a war to distract everyone, since the sovereign debt crisis is causing the collapse of governments in a system where there is a debt that is growing every year and no one has the slightest intention of paying their debts".
The same logic applies to Europe and other countries. This is how it looks Armstrong:
"Our biggest problem is that bureaucrats want a war. This will distract the population from abuse by controlling the NSA and in fact justify what they have been doing. They need a distraction to the economic downturn looming "

Billionaire hedge fund manager Kyle Bass says:
Kyle Bass
Kyle Bass
"Billions of dollars of debts will be restructured and financially prudent million savers lose large percentages of their real purchasing power. Once again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of profligate countries will be subjected to great stress and in some cases tear. Unfortunately, when we look back and review the economic history, too often what we see it is that war is the logical manifestation of economic entropy. The war is an inevitable consequence of the current global economic situation "
Billionaire investor Jim Rogers says:
Jim Rogers
Jim Rogers
"Following the bailouts in Europe, it may trigger a new world war. Adding more debt, the situation will only get worse, and finally, everything will collapse. Then everyone will be looking for scapegoats. Politicians blame foreigners, and we'll get fully into another World War. "
The economist and investment manager Marc Faber says that the US government will start new wars in response to the economic crisis:
Marc Faber
Marc Faber
"The next thing the government will do to distract the attention of people in poor economic conditions, will start a war somewhere."
"When the global economy recovers, usually people go to war"
War is very good for a handful of defense contractors and bankers who earn huge sums to support unnecessary wars.
USA today is an oligarchy. And an official of the Bush senior administration, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, said at the time that the oligarchy controls all decisions about the war in the US.
So these people doing big business with the war, the US government will push to get into one.
As if this were not enough, many influential economists and pundits who have the firm belief that war is good for the economy.
Therefore, many are openly pushing for starting a war under the misconception that point it will help the economy ultimately view.
One thing that generally agree historians, is that when the power of empires begins to wane, tend to attack their growing rivals ... therefore, the risk of a world war is increasing due to the US he feels threatened by the growing momentum of China.
The US government believes that economic rivalry is enough to start a war base. Therefore, the US is systematically using the military to contain the growing economic clout of China.
In addition, it is well known that competition for scarce resources, often leading to war.
For example, the Oxford University's Quarterly Journal of Economics, said:
"In his classic work, 'A Study of War', Wright (1942), devotes an entire chapter to the relationship between war and resources. Another classic reference, 'Statistics of Deadly Quarrels' Richardson (1960), comprehensively analyzes the economic causes of war, including control of "essential sources of raw materials."
"History is full of examples. For example, in the Pacific War (1879-1884), Chile fought a defensive alliance of Bolivia and Peru for control of guano deposits minerals (ie, bird poop). The war was precipitated by the increase in the value of deposits due to its wide use in agriculture "
Westing (1986) argues that many of the wars in the twentieth century had an important relationship with the lack of resources. Examples cited by the Algerian War (1954- 1962), the Six-Day War (1967) and the Chaco War (1932-1935). More recently, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the result of the dispute over the Rumaila oil field. "
"In Resource Wars (2001), Klare argues that after the end of the Cold War, control of valuable natural resources has become increasingly important, and that these resources will become a primary motivation for future wars ".
The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan (and many world leaders) admitted that the Iraq war was mainly for oil, and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush says Iraq war planned before 9/11.
And as we know, Syria, Libya, Iran and Russia are oil-producing countries, too ...
In fact, we have extensively documented the wars in the Middle East and North Africa are largely for control of oil and gas.
The wars in Syria and Iraq are on pipelines. The war in Gaza is no exception. And the issue of Ukraine has much to do with the gas.
James Quinn and Charles Hugh Smith argue that we are running out all these resources ... which will lead to war.
At present, we are in the midst of a global currency war, ie, a situation in which all countries compete to devalue their currencies, mostly in order to boost exports.
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said in 2010:
"The last time there was a series of competitive devaluations ... it ended in the Second World War"
Jim Rickards agrees:
Jim Rickards
Jim Rickards
"The currency wars leading to trade wars, which often lead to full war".
And billionaire investor Jim Rogers, thinks similarly:
"Trade wars always lead to complete war"
Given that China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa have joined forces to create a bank of 100,000 million in China, and that more trade is conducted in yuan and rubles instead of dollars, we can conclude that the currency war is heating up quickly.
In fact, many of the closest US allies are joining the efforts of China, which is challenging the US and the dollar's hegemony.
Billionaire investor says Hugo Salinas Price:
Hugo Salinas Price
Hugo Salinas Price
"What happened to Gaddafi's Libya? Many speculate that the real reason for his ouster was that he was planning a single currency for all Africans, like the euro in Europe. The same happened to him happened to Saddam Hussein, because the US does not want any sound currency may appear out there and compete with the dollar. Gaddafi was speaking of a gold dinar "
CNBC editor John Carney said, referring to the creation of a central bank by the Libyan rebels:
"It's the first time a revolutionary group creates a central bank, while still in the midst of the struggle against political establishment that tries to overthrow. Certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers are in our age.
The initiative to create a central bank clearly shows that foreign powers have a strong influence on the rebels.
This suggests that not only are a handful of rebellious rabble running up and down, but behind them there are some pretty sophisticated influences "
In fact, all the recent wars appear to have been caused to get all countries to come into the fold of Western central banking.
Paul Tudor Jones, founder of Tudor Investment Corporation and the Tudor Group, who said recently:
Paul Tudor Jones
Paul Tudor Jones
"The gap between 1% of the richest and the rest of the American population, and between the US and the world, can not continue for long. Historically, such gaps are closed in one of three ways: with a revolution, raising taxes or war "
Well, right now, there are many signs that point to the third option ...

ROBOT'S NOTE: Obviously, this article leaves many things in the pipeline, it is focused exclusively on the relationship between the global economic downturn and the state of pre-war it seems that we live.
However, it is easy to see that many of the things we're seeing in the "global war on terrorism" and the annulment of freedoms (including freedom of expression as in France, unheard), are related a possible economic collapse.
If this collapse occurs, the Governments would have the perfect scapegoat to blamed for everything: terrorism.
And besides, restricting our freedoms caused by the "anti-terrorist struggle" (especially that of opinion, assembly and protest), pearl them come to repress popular protests and predictable anti-government that would follow a possible economic collapse .
For a possible direct military confrontation between powers, there are still some middle chapters, especially in the form of large-scale false flag ...

Keywords: Third World War, economic collapse, USA, Russia, World War III, ISIS, EI, Sirya, US, Washington