[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Israel/Zionism See other Israel/Zionism Articles Title: Israeli death squads involved in Sandy Hook bloodbath: Intelligence analyst Days later, the Sandy Hook Massacre, the iconic slaughter of twenty small children, is now looking like a terrorist attack, not a “murder suicide.” Was “lone gunman” Adam Lanza a “patsy,” the same word Lee Harvey Oswald used to describe himself before being “silenced” in November 1963? Today, Michael Harris, former Republican candidate for governor of Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman, in an internationally televised news broadcast, cited “Israeli revenge” in, what he called, “the terrorist attack in Connecticut.” Harris cited Israeli “rage” against the US and against President Barack Obama. By “Israel,” we mean “Netanyahu.” The mission was to teach America a lesson, knowing that “America would take the punishment, keep “quiet,” and let a ‘fall guy’ take the blame.” A “fall guy” is another word for “patsy.” Harris, citing the flood of inconsistencies in the “cover story,” pointed out the following, “The facts are now becoming obvious. This is another case where Israel has chosen violence and terrorism where their bullying in Washington has failed. Israel believes the US “threw them under the bus,” particularly after the recent Gaza war, allowing Israel to be humiliated in the United Nations. Their response was to stage a terror attack, targeting America in the most hideous and brutal way possible, in fact, an Israeli “signature attack,” one that butchers children, one reminiscent of the attacks that killed so many children in Gaza?” Washington is terrified of Israel, their powerful lobby and its relationship with organized crime. Now, a key former Senator, Chuck Hagel, who has helped expose this fact, is likely to be nominated as the secretary of defense, despite vocal protests from Israel. Today, Israeli news gave further credence to Harris’ analysis when they issued the following statements regarding the probable nomination of Hegel: “Chuck Hagel’s statements and actions regarding Israel have raised serious concerns for many Americans who care about Israel,” said the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director, Matt Brooks. “The Jewish community and every American who supports a strong US-Israel relationship have cause for alarm if the president taps Hagel for such an important post.” “The appointment of Chuck Hagel would be a slap in the face for every American who is concerned about the safety of Israel,” he asserted Citing a 2006 interview with Hegel, the news continued, “The political reality is…that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don’t think it’s in the interest of Israel. I just don’t think it’s smart for Israel.” Hagel also said he didn’t think he had ever signed one of the letters the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) regularly circulates to demonstrate support for Israel or tough stands against parties such as Iran. “I didn’t sign the letter because it was a stupid letter…I’m not an Israeli senator, I’m a United States senator.” During his interview today, Mike Harris explained his rationale for looking to Israel as responsible for Sandy Hook, saying “This is exactly what Israel did in Norway; the political party that voted sanctions against Israel was retaliated against by a “lone gunman” who killed 77 children. This is what Israel always does, they go after the children. It is what they do in Gaza every day. It is what was done in Norway. It is what happened at Sandy Hook. Nobody buys the “lone gunman” story anymore, not with the Gabby Giffords’ shooting, not with the Aurora “Batman” shooting, certainly not with Breveik, and certainly not in Connecticut.” After Harris’ broadcast, key members of the military and law enforcement community contacted Veterans Today in full support of Harris’ analysis. One three star general is quoted as saying, “Harris hit the nail right on the head and it is about time someone spoke up.” As days have passed, key issues involving the Sandy Hook terror attack have been cited as “debunking” the “lone gunman” cover story: From a viral email that is growing every hour with more reasons to doubt the official story: According to the official story, Adam Lanza was found with his older brother’s ID, and it was not stolen. However, older brother Ryan - whom officials say is very cooperative - claims not to have even seen his brother since 2010. Where would Adam get this ID? And why does such use not qualify as a theft? According to the official story, Adam Lanza was wearing a black outfit with a mask and bulletproof vest. Why would he want to hide his identity, and why would he wear a bulletproof vest if he planned to kill himself? The medical examiner asserts that all wounds were caused by a rifle or other long weapon, and police/FBI say that the school was littered with 223 (rifle) casings. However, Adam Lanza was found dead at the school with only handguns - a rifle was found in the trunk of his car. Then he could not have possibly been firing the rifle, and could not have committed the murders. Who did then? According to the official story, the killings was tightly confined to two classrooms. Then why were so many children told to close their eyes while leaving the building? Joanne Didonato, the principal’s secretary, called in sick on Friday - something she rarely does. So presumably, she must have been awfully ill. Yet she then felt well enough to give an interview. “Of all days,” she said, emphasizing the strange coincidence. Why were there such persistent reports that Mrs. Lanza was a kindergarten teacher, and that she died at the school when the new official story is that she was not connected to the school and was killed at home? What happened to the report that Adam Lanza’s girlfriend and another friend were missing in New Jersey? What happened to the woodsman in a black jacket and camo pants who was arrested and handcuffed outside the school? He actually shouted to parents, “It wasn’t me.” Who was he and what was he doing there? What happened to the dark van or SUV that the police surrounded in the parking lot or the maroon sedan with a blown-out back window they were on the lookout for? The official story is that Nancy Lanza was a gun collector, who obeyed the law. But since 20-year-olds are not permitted to buy guns or ammo or carry guns in Connecticut, why would she give her “autistic” son access to both guns and ammo? A child asserts that he/she heard someone say, “Put your hands up,” followed by the reply, “Don’t shoot.” This indicates that the police took a suspect into custody inside the school. But if that was Adam Lanza, how did he kill himself after that point? Another child asserts that he/she saw a man pinned down to the ground with handcuffs on. Again, this indicates that the police took a suspect into custody. If that was Adam Lanza, how did he then kill himself? Is it reasonable for a geeky 20-year-old to carry two pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammunition while wearing a bulletproof vest and a mask? Did the school have one or more security cameras? What do they show? Why did a police officer specifically mention on radio that “they’re coming at me through this wood” followed by a fellow officer saying, “This is it”? One officer at the school said, “We’ve got one suspect down.” Who was that? Down in this situation generally means in custody (on the ground and cuffed) not dead. Why is Adam Lanza reported to be a loner when a teenager said (oxymoronically), “[Lanza and his friends] always gathered alone in a corner in school”? Why are Ryan Lanza and his roommates still in custody, and why are the police pretending that it is for their own benefit? Is it a coincidence that Nancy Lanza’s brother is Kingston Police Officer James Champion, who lives next door to the former Lanza home? --- This is only a small percentage of the irregularities noted in what now seems to be more of a cover-up than investigation. In truth, the public may well just be sick of hearing stories about “lone gunmen.” Of all possible horrors, this one, even more than the Benghazi killings, is loaded with political implication, not just “gun control,” but a clear attack on the security of every American family. The simplest thing would be to sit back and accept what we are told without examining who gains, who loses and “why now?” Is Harris right? Would Israel order the deaths of twenty tiny children to make a political point? Have they done this before? Is Harris right about that too? Moments ago, Harris phoned me. I asked him if, hours later, he was still willing to back up his statements. His answer was simple: “You murder children as part of ‘business as usual,’ you shouldn’t be surprised that when children are murdered, people look to you.” Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47.
#2. To: X-15 (#0)
I'm gonna have to see some shells on the ground before I believe shots were fired. Shells on the ground and holes in the walls where the bullets would of gone through. Children were used but I don't think any were murdered. Forced to lie for the tyranny YES. Murdered no.
Can you not see the logical problems with your statement?
The tyranny rules through ignorance, deception, mis direction , and opinion control. I note that you do not touch the physical evidence like my want of shell casings and bullet holes and instead you prefer to rely on the emotional pleas quoting only my bit about the children (wont someone please think about the poor children/sarc). Also Why even bother addressing me at all former lurker unless it is your sole intent to cause further 4um disruption here by continuing to fuck with me?
Making a polite observation is "fucking with you" now, eh? I was commenting on how you were boldly asserting that the parents of 20 children FORCED THEM TO LIE FOR TYRANNY. Are you not aware how insane that sounds to a normal person? Do you think people all of a sudden call each other on the phone and say, "Hey Joe, let's pretend to have our kids killed tomorrow at school, it'll be fun. Let's call the Illuminati and have them set it up for us, and we can get the school staff in on it too". You don't appear to be able to think through what you claim, yet hurl insults and accusations at people who try to educate you in things you obviously are not thinking through clearly. YOU sir are helping "the tyranny" by choosing to spread unfounded conjecture which reflects poorly on those who ARE concerned about the inconsistencies with the official story.
If I may add a comment while the hubby is at work in the hopes of not getting accused of being a sock? Post hunting is what occurred. Did you really have the need to let him know that he was incorrect in his assessment? Even if the observation was polite, was it really necessary? Did you need to ping Christine over this? SilverStorm
I realize that you are simply standing up for your dearheart, but as long as an observation does not amount to a personal attack it is perfectly valid to register a disagreement with someone's reasoning (regardless of any bad blood that may have previously been exchanged). It is the nature of debate.
All I said was "Can you not see the logical problems with your statement? " And that's somehow some evil dastardly thing. Unless I were to say "hey dude that sounds cool, all those kids are lying little bastards and their parents are pure evil", I'd get some sort of similar response back as I did. Now wifey wants to play the victim as well.
And that's somehow some evil dastardly thing. Unless I were to say "hey dude that sounds cool, all those kids are lying little bastards and their parents are pure evil", I'd get some sort of similar response back as I did. You should recall that a Russian cell of spies was reported in this country in recent years and doubtless they aren't the only ones. Families and alleged families are part of agent "legends". A probable Russian connection has already been established in evidence here some time ago with the family of the boy nicknamed "Bear". To assert that none of the children could be lying is unrealistic, imo. A select few were interviewed as compared to the hundreds of students allegedly there that day. Some may have been telling the truth based on the trauma they experienced as if it were really happening, as far as they knew, and some might have been coached to lie. If you were thinking more logically than emotionally about that, I think you might even agree. Yes, it would be a very rare occurrence but stranger things have been known to happen in this world, as the saying goes.
You are asserting not only the affected families, but all of the local authorities, the population of those areas, and all the media are producing fiction in terms of passing actors off as real people. Do you not see a problem with that logic? You're either trying to say that the rest of that population would either not know or care if the people being reported as real people were actors, or you're saying that the entire town was in on it.
There are no replies to Comment # 47. End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||