FALSE FLAG REDUX DEPT.
Here we go again — a terrible shooting event with mass casualties with a patsy or, in this case patsies, quickly named and killed. If this smells like yet another false flag attack, you’re right. In this piece, World Affairs Brief editor Joel Skousen presents the information not clearly reported by the corporate mass media regarding the mysteries and inconsistencies of the recent San Bernardino shooting.
SAN BERNARDINO–A FALSE FLAG BLACK OPERATION
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief
December 11, 2015
Last week, we noted several inconsistencies in the official narrative surrounding the shooting at a Department of Public Health holiday party in California. These clues hinted that there was a cover-up going on and that Syed Farook and his wife were set up to take the blame, but this week, the eyewitness testimony and their description of the attackers directly contradicts the official narrative—they say that three tall, white males did all the shooting, not Syed and certainly not his diminutive wife. Incredibly, the same establishment news outlets who published the original interviews refused to follow up on this major contradiction, discouraged the alternate testimonies and continued to push the official version blaming the conveniently dead couple. One of the witnesses said he even received a phone call directing him to change his story and implicate Farook, but he refused. That’s real evidence of a cover-up and conspiracy.
Here’s the emerging evidence by Counter Current News of the multiple witnesses who saw the professional hit team that did the shooting (reminiscent of the white hit team in the black Mercedes that did all the shooting at the restaurants and bars during the Paris attack last month):
“It’s not him,” a third San Bernardino shooting witness proclaimed about Sayd Farook and his wife… Earlier this month, the attorneys for the Farook family maintained that they do not believe the suspects are the ones who carried out the attacks in question.
Several eyewitnesses and family of witnesses and victims initially said that three athletic Caucasian men had been responsible for carrying out the attacks. Police immediately banned them from speaking with the media.
Just days ago, another eye-witness in the office came forward and said that in spite of what the law enforcement and mainstream media narrative is saying, the people who carried out the attack where very athletic, large, Caucasian men, who were three – not two – in number. Farook’s wife, it should be remembered weighed approximately 90lbs.
Now, a third prominent eye-witness, [Chris] Nwadike, has stepped up to challenge the mainstream narrative. He recently told reporters he received a phone call from an unknown person around 7 p.m., on the evening of the shooting, who told him that he must say that Sayd Farook was the shooter. You read that right, he says that he was called and told to change his story and say that Farook carried out the attacks with his wife, even though that is very different than what he witnessed.
Nwadike told reporters: “No it’s not him [Sayd]. I told them about it. He’s quiet. He doesn’t make any trouble.” “He was just spraying bullets everywhere,” Nwadike said. But the gunman was not Sayd, or his wife.
Tim Brown relayed an interesting conversation with a former government contractor implicating the same tactical training company that was suspiciously everywhere during the Boston Marathon bombing. The following was published by the Washington Standard
Yesterday, I reported on the fact that multiple outlets had reported three shooters in the San Bernardino massacre, including claims that they were white males. While we have been told that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were the ones who were the killers, former National Security Agency/ Central Intelligence Agency contractor Steven D. Kelley says that it was a false flag operation that was carried out by a tactical training company for the US military, known as Craft International.
Kelley, who is a weapons expert, was interviewed on Press TV on Tuesday and said that the shooting “is just one in a long string of false flag events that I am afraid to say are not over.”
“We’ll probably be seeing several more before the end of the year, because of the events that are going on in the world, specifically with the NATO being implicated in the buying of oil from Daesh and other events,” he added.
“So when these things happen they need to have a rapid response which requires a false flag attack. This was very obvious that this was going to happen,” Kelley continued.
“The people that were on the scene and saw this happen also reported that three tall white men wearing black shirts, khaki pants and tanned combat boots were actually the shooters,” Kelley told Press TV. “The description is almost exactly what the gentlemen from Craft International, the mercenary organization that was involved in so many other false flags, actually look like. This seems to be their standard uniform.”
While Obama took advantage of the crisis to attack the rights of gun owners, Kelley said, “The people that are being implicated – the couple — first of all if they were planning something, if they were radicalized as this is being said, and clearly the NSA, the FBI will be right on the top of these people all the time, but rather than stopping them from doing something, they were nurtured to be used for this exact purpose.”
Well, if that were the case, where is the FBI when it comes to at least 22 verified Islamic terror training camps on US soil? Why is the FBI not enforcing the laws against totalitarian Islamists consistent with the law? [and why aren’t they active, doing any terror attacks? -Because this is controlled terror, not real. Someday they might be unleashed].
“I do not suspect that these people have anything to do with the actual shooting,” he said. “I suspect that these were patsies, [I agree—to divert attention away from the 3 shooters who the government has never attempt to find] no different than Timothy McVeigh or any of these other people who have historically been used to implement these terrorist acts.”
I have no problem with Kelley’s assessment that they were patsies, but that doesn’t explain how they were on the scene with the weapons they had and in full body armor and shot down the way they were.
“If you look at the people that were wounded you can see clearly that bullet wounds are not real. The 223 weapon or bullets fired from AR15 – an extremely powerful weapon — would blow someone’s arm off, it is not going to make a small hole,” said Kelley.
“So clearly this is a very, very dirty false flag. Obviously, the United States is getting very, very desperate; the government here is very desperate, they need to do something immediately to disarm the United States prior to a revolution, because the people here are waking up very fast, and they are ready to shut down this evil empire. And this needs to happen very soon,” Kelley concluded.
Now, the question is this: Since Former CIA Director William Casey said in 1981, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false,” should we believe Mr. Kelley or the media? Or, are we simply doomed to not know exactly what took place in San Bernardino? Personally, I’m not convinced of Mr. Kelley’s assertions and I do believe that Muslims were behind the attack, though I still would like to know who the third suspect was and why they were not held.
Infowars.com added that details from the first witness who came out saying there were three shooters:
An eyewitness account by Sally Abdelmageed, a worker at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, reported “three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on they were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three… one of them… started to shoot into the room.”
Abdelmageed said “I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on…[ski masks that cover most of the face] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side… long sleeve shirt… glove… huge assault rifle… six magazines… I just saw three dressed exactly the same.” “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall,” she told CBS News.
“You are certain you saw three men,” the newscaster asked. “Yes,” said Abdelmageed. “It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”
In a shill-like manner the CBS reporter responded, [trying to undermine what she just said] “And of course we just learned that one suspect was a woman.”
Another witness backed up Abdelmageed’s story. Juan Hernandez told a local NBC affiliate he saw “three white men in military fatigues” leaving the scene.
What makes this a media cover-up is the fact that none of the mainstream media has ever posed any questions about these contradictions. They simply keep pushing the government narrative focusing on Farook and his wife. We have seen dozens of in-depth articles examining the couples radicalization and prior attempts to pull off an attack. But this new information emerging is sounding much like the multiple times in history when FBI agent provocateurs have induced disturbed Muslims to commit acts of terror.
Even the daily coverage of Enrique Marquez who authorities say bought the assault rifles for the suspects has signs of being a set-up:
The last part is false. They were not legally transferred. There is no paperwork transferring ownership of the weapons to Farook, as required by California law:
There is no paperwork transferring ownership of the weapons to Farook, federal officials have previously said.… When neither party to a transaction is a licensed firearms dealer, firearms transfers in California must be completed through a licensed California dealer. To complete such transactions, the seller or transferor must provide the firearm to the dealer, who will deliver the firearm to the purchaser or transferee following a background check and expiration of the mandatory state waiting period.
“If you listen to your reporter earlier, what he said is the ATF believes that someone purchased this gun on behalf of the police department and somehow that gun ended up in the hands of this guy, so it actually does not sound at all like this man purchased a firearm.”
Joe Scarborough suddenly changed the subject, clearly not wanting to address the blockbuster information she heard (and which he too must have heard). This doesn’t necessarily mean that Marquez was directly working for police, but perhaps a “handler” could have worked with him to get the weapons on behalf of Farook and wife, who were being set up as patsies. By the way, that would make Marquez a straw buyer (someone who buys a weapon on behalf of another to evade the background check on the hidden party) which is also illegal in California.
Because the police evaded every witness that described the three shooters and have tried to hide another “third suspect” who they detained but refused to talk about, I can’t help but believe they were under federal pressure to engage in a cover-up, just like the entire media corps who is walking lock step to push the official line, avoiding any discussion of the tall three men who were allowed to get away. Just as the Paris police never went looking for the Black Mercedes and its professional hit-men, so the San Bernardino police and FBI have never even hinted that they are pursuing the three men mentioned by multiple witnesses.
The evidence of government knowledge of this attack continues to come out. For example, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported that,
Law enforcement officials in San Bernardino and Los Angeles may have investigated Syed Farook one week before the shooting on the community development center… Federal and local authorities have insisted that neither of the attackers had aroused suspicion before the assault earlier this month and that both Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were unknown to law enforcement and US intelligence. But conversations between law enforcement officials in the hours after the shootings leave a different impression.
Farook is first identified by name at approximately 11:40am local time, just a half hour after the shooting began. The information came from a county worker, who noted that Farook had been acting nervous and left the holiday party twenty minutes before the shooting began. [notice he didn’t say he’d actually seen Farook doing the shooting].
In a subsequent exchange at approximately 12:08pm the dispatcher addresses an officer nicknamed “Trav” upon hearing “Syed Farook.” She says: “Reference that name, I believe one of the [garbled] was working that name up for something last week. I’ll have to check.”
In a second exchange shortly after 12:20, another officer says of Farook: “I just got some info from that LAPD that they have information on one of your suspects. I heard that somebody was trying to INV that guy. Can you find out who I can give this information to?”
I think the emphasis on legal purchase (in California, no less, with some of the strictest gun regulations in the nation) is meant to bolster the case for banning all assault weapons rather than just regulating them. In the aftermath of the San Bernardino shooting there was a massive wave of gun buying, including assault weapons as people could see where the government is heading with all this anti-gun hype. The Gateway Pundit noted that “over 100 million guns have been sold in the United States since Barack Obama was elected president.”
A predictable wave of gun control editorials surfaced in the aftermath, including the Huffington Post that called for outright confiscation of all assault weapons. The NY Times publisher put his anti-gun editorial right on the front page, almost unheard of, except when they want to push a big agenda. Survival fiction writer and blogger Jim Rawles reacted to it by calling them “fighting words.” Here’s a short excerpt of his counter argument and warning to government.
The New York Times just published the newspaper’s first front page editorial in 95 years. It urged America’s legislators to outlaw civilian ownership of semiautomatic battle rifles. This editorial twisted words to castigate our militia arms as follows: “These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.”
The editor went on to urge: “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”
Those are fighting words. They’ve made it clear: These statists want to enact a law forcing civilian disarmament. This would of course be enforced under color of law, by their recently militarized bully boys in black. (Formerly in blue.)
I have a few terse points for Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Editor Dean Baquet, their subordinate editors of The New York Times, and all others of their ilk:.. If you want my guns, sir, then come and take them. But when you send your thugs to my ranch, tell them to bring plenty of body bags and extra grub. Because they’ll certainly need them.
What Rawles said is true, but perhaps unwise to say so openly. These words will certainly put a target on his back (and all those associated with him) whom the Southern Poverty Law Conference can lump into the category of domestic terrorists.
The use of the term domestic terrorist when applied to all gun owners is particularly unjust given that Obama is hinting at putting them on the secret and notorious no-fly list which causes so much havoc with passengers. Obama is threatening to use his executive authority to put those who are on a government terror watch on the no-fly list as well. Mac Slavo had a complete rebuttal to this idiocy, including this quote:
“It’s very, very common for individuals who have similar appearing names to be confused with people who are actually on the no-fly list,” said Barry Steinhardt, a New York-based lawyer who heads the American Civil Liberties Union’s Technology and Liberty Program. “The lists are both so shrouded in secrecy and so large [now 700K people] that inevitably innocent people are swept up as potential suspects or terrorists especially when you have lists that are maintained by intelligence agencies that have very little oversight,” he said.
Even the Washington Post blasted President Obama’s proposals for adding terror watch list suspects to the no-buy gun list:
The no-fly list is a secret list that uses secret criteria to determine who finds a home on it. So if you link banning guns to the no-fly list, the scenario presented is completely feasible: The government could theoretically add anyone it wants to the no-fly list, even broad categories of people, and thereby prevent them from owning a gun.