Santa Monica Shooting-Another False Flag?

reply to post by BABYBULL24

Sorry.. I don't see the relation in incidents and connecting them by anything more than the common craziness and desperation is a real long stretch for me to try and make on any level. This wasn't THAT unusual an event. Hardly a daily thing, but not like the school shootings or something. The guy went postal and took it public. It happens...sadly.

The drill is an interesting coincidence but probably what made the media key on this. Listen to the scanners across Los Angeles on any average day or night? It's a very rough place at times....all sorts of people from the good to the outright nutty sprinkled with criminally insane here and there. Not many, but enough not to make this shocking, IMO. Tragic tho....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yes,but there seems to be a coincidental drill in every single location ,there is later a mass causality incident .
Having been a paramedic in nyc,and Connecticut ,I know how common these drills are ,and where they're usually held .
These coincidences are a bit over the top . For me anyway . Also ,there have been more mass causality incidents during Obama's time in office,than every other president put together.
Start with fort hood I think ,in 09 ,and count off all the mass causality incidents since. It's ridiculous .

Originally posted by survival

Originally posted by JayinAR

False flag? Nah. Ridiculously pathetic assassination attempt? Perhaps.

You rule out a false flag & claim an "assassination attempt, perhaps"? That is just not credible in the slightest.


Like it or not, if you have access to a GUN, you're subtly connected with all other folks that have the GUNS.

Perhaps it is BOTH - a false flag assassination which didn't go off as planned. The patsy shooter ran off into the campus so they followed him, and turned it into a campus shooting before shooting the patsy. Any opportunity to create an event which justifies further gun control. The location is irrelevant. If it makes the news and sensationalizes gun violence then it is useful to them. The message is clear: guns are bad, the government is good. Simplistic slogans are harder to combat because they are truisms. Obviously, gun violence is bad if you are a gun victim, but don't expect any sympathy if you are the victim of democide.

Governments have killed more people than anything else in the history of mankind. Don't get me wrong, I don't like guns and will never own one, but that doesn't mean I like the government and the criminals having all the guns. In a perfect world, there would be no guns and no violence, period. The human heart however is desperately wicked, as the Bible says. Hopefully more people will turn to Jesus Christ and find peace before the end comes. That is our only hope for peace in society.

What I want to know is why are his magazines blue like they were for a gun with a Sim kit in it?

imageshack.us...

______beforeitsnews/alternative/2013/06/santa-monica-appear-to-be-another-false-flag-2677394.html

This is the first FF story I've seen.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Magister

 

So how exactly does this equate to false flag? ill be honest, the timing left me wondering as well, but every single event that hits the news is called a false flag on this site. Can we get some sort of perspective?

It's a conspiracy site. What do you expect?

You can go anywhere else and get the kind of "perspective" in which everything that doesn't come out of the mouth of a talking head is tin foil hat paranoia.

Perspective? Does that word even have any meaning in this context? We're sitting out here seeing all these suspicious events and we're trying to guess why the lone gunmen always shoot a bunch of people with an AR-15. Meanwhile, the US government is in the midst of a steadfast and unrelenting campaign to ban "assault weapons" (scary looking guns with big magazines).

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention before but we seem to be in the midst of an unprecedented spate of mass shootings in the last couple of years. Coincidentally, that's about when the gun control crap started. I wonder why anyone would be suspicious?

reply to post by BrianFlanders

It's a conspiracy site. What do you expect?

These days, not much. There was a time, though, when evidence was a key element.....

You can go anywhere else and get the kind of "perspective" in which everything that doesn't come out of the mouth of a talking head is tin foil hat paranoia.

Ok? I dont remember saying anything about tin foil, paranoia, or talking heads. What I did say was that at some point, we have to back these things up with evidence.

Perspective? Does that word even have any meaning in this context?

Yes it does.

We're sitting out here seeing all these suspicious events and we're trying to guess why the lone gunmen always shoot a bunch of people with an AR-15.

You might be guessing. I prefer to research and look for actual evidence.

. Meanwhile, the US government is in the midst of a steadfast and unrelenting campaign to ban "assault weapons" (scary looking guns with big magazines).

Unrelenting? Im pro second amendment, but last I looked, all gun bills were shot down (pun intended).

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention before but we seem to be in the midst of an unprecedented spate of mass shootings in the last couple of years.

I dont know about unprecedented, Id have to look into that, but they certainly are more publicized than ever before. Ther is no question that these things are used to further an agenda. But calling false flag without any evidence simply continues to destroy the already less than savory reputation of the C.T. community.

Coincidentally, that's about when the gun control crap started. I wonder why anyone would be suspicious?

I didnt say dont be suspicious, and you're absolutely wrong that THAT is when all of this started. These events have been used to further the agenda, but its been around a lot longer.

Like I said in the post that you are responding to, my first reaction was that it was really quite suspicious. But does anyone really think it helps anything to yell "FALSE FLAG!" at EVERY event, without backing it up with some evidence?

And people wonder why the CT community is not taken seriously.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Ok? I dont remember saying anything about tin foil, paranoia, or talking heads. What I did say was that at some point, we have to back these things up with evidence.

Like what? What do you consider to be "evidence"? Do you really think that IF these things are staged the media wouldn't be in on it? Where do you think some random person sitting at a computer drinking a beer is going to find evidence that would expose a conspiracy?

This site is intended for speculation. That's what a conspiracy theory is. It's no fun, really, if you can't speculate.

And finally, what would even be the purpose of presenting any "evidence" that we think we have? It's not going to make one bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Take 9/11, for example (I don't want to go OT and argue about it. I'm just using it as an example). Now I personally think the two main towers probably collapsed under their own weight and because of the massive damage that was done. But building 7 really did look suspicious. Nevertheless, most people will look at it and won't see anything suspicious about the way it appeared as though the entire support structure just gave way at the same time. If you can have something that looks that suspicious and most people outside the CT community don't even notice, you're going to have a hard time splitting hairs and pointing out nuances in mass shootings.

In my opinion, I don't think it matters if I can prove it. I get a bad vibe and I've learned to trust my instincts. Trying to prove it isn't going to get us anywhere. We're not mortal enemies here. We just disagree. If TPTB ever actually really screw up and the whole world sees them for what they are, it'll be nothing short of a miracle. Until then, they'll always be a thousand steps ahead of us.

You might be guessing. I prefer to research and look for actual evidence.

Again, I would ask where you expect to find such evidence? In news footage? Please. Anything you might find - some small discrepancy or inconsistency can be easily explained away by people who are determined not to see anything wrong. And frankly, the debunkers usually do provide plausible excuses. That's to say it can be impossible to tell the difference when you look at one individual incident and try to find evidence contained wholly within that incident.

It only really starts to look really suspicious when you look at the big picture and how many of these incidents seem to be happening in a very short period of time. How the details are so often almost identical.

Unrelenting? Im pro second amendment, but last I looked, all gun bills were shot down (pun intended)

And now, they have turned to making a "no guns list" based upon "mental illness". Which may well have been where they were going all along.

I dont know about unprecedented, Id have to look into that, but they certainly are more publicized than ever before. Ther is no question that these things are used to further an agenda. But calling false flag without any evidence simply continues to destroy the already less than savory reputation of the C.T. community.

Well, it certainly seems like it's accelerated since 2008 to me. Especially in the last couple of years. Obama's supporters initially poo pooed the notion that he'd try to ban guns so he needed a pretty good excuse. And he suddenly had the best excuses in the world handed to him on a silver platter. Coincidence? Maybe. But I ain't buying it.

I didnt say dont be suspicious, and you're absolutely wrong that THAT is when all of this started. These events have been used to further the agenda, but its been around a lot longer.

I meant that these events suddenly seemed to be getting more frequent specifically in the last few years. Just when they had a president who could afford to be anti-gun. We all know most liberals despise the Second Amendment with a passion. All that is necessary for a Democratic president to go after guns is to get the liberal base fired up. And how is that done? They gotta make 'em cry for the poor innocents.

Like I said in the post that you are responding to, my first reaction was that it was really quite suspicious. But does anyone really think it helps anything to yell "FALSE FLAG!" at EVERY event, without backing it up with some evidence?

And people wonder why the CT community is not taken seriously.

Well, we never have been, frankly. There are some things we really should try to change about the way we behave but speculating isn't it. We will never be taken seriously by people who are afraid to question. People do not want to be suspects. They will not come out of their bubbles until it's safe.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Thats not necessarily true.

Remember this?
West Roads Mall Shooting, Dec. 5, 2007. Omaha, Nebraska

Originally posted by Chickensalad
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Thats not necessarily true.

Remember this?
West Roads Mall Shooting, Dec. 5, 2007. Omaha, Nebraska

To which part are you referring on my post? Please specify so I can respond appropriately.
Thanks

reply to post by BrianFlanders

Like what? What do you consider to be "evidence"?

Evidence: a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Meaning something other than "an event happened, so its a false flag"

Do you really think that IF these things are staged the media wouldn't be in on it? Where do you think some random person sitting at a computer drinking a beer is going to find evidence that would expose a conspiracy?

Well, they seem perfectly ok with labeling them a false flag. So I dont think asking for evidence is too much.

This site is intended for speculation. That's what a conspiracy theory is. It's no fun, really, if you can't speculate.

Is it? So skeptics arent allowed?

And finally, what would even be the purpose of presenting any "evidence" that we think we have? It's not going to make one bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

It would lend some credibility to the statement, and serve to further the revelation of truth. Isnt that, afterall, what conspiracy theories are about?

Take 9/11, for example (I don't want to go OT and argue about it. I'm just using it as an example). Now I personally think the two main towers probably collapsed under their own weight and because of the massive damage that was done. But building 7 really did look suspicious. Nevertheless, most people will look at it and won't see anything suspicious about the way it appeared as though the entire support structure just gave way at the same time.

9/11 has nothing to do with this event, and plenty of people are aware of the EVIDENCE that backs up theories about it.

If you can have something that looks that suspicious and most people outside the CT community don't even notice, you're going to have a hard time splitting hairs and pointing out nuances in mass shootings.

1)A LOT of people are aware that things arent right with the 9/11 os.
2)Its now splitting hairs and pointing out nuances to provide simple evidence as to WHY you think this is a false flag?

In my opinion, I don't think it matters if I can prove it.

I didnt ask anyone to prove anything, nor do I expect them to. I just find blind accusations to be counter-productive.

I get a bad vibe and I've learned to trust my instincts. Trying to prove it isn't going to get us anywhere

It not? So whats the point then? To label EVERY event that happens as a false flag? Personally, I am about TRUTH.

We're not mortal enemies here. We just disagree.

I never thought I was your enemy, nor am I sure what we disagree about. Do you mean the importance of evidence?

If TPTB ever actually really screw up and the whole world sees them for what they are, it'll be nothing short of a miracle. Until then, they'll always be a thousand steps ahead of us.

Thats quite the defeatist attitude.

Again, I would ask where you expect to find such evidence?

Same place you found whatever it is that made you decide this is a false flag.

In news footage? Please. Anything you might find - some small discrepancy or inconsistency can be easily explained away by people who are determined not to see anything wrong. And frankly, the debunkers usually do provide plausible excuses. That's to say it can be impossible to tell the difference when you look at one individual incident and try to find evidence contained wholly within that incident.

Again, very defeatist.

It only really starts to look really suspicious when you look at the big picture and how many of these incidents seem to be happening in a very short period of time. How the details are so often almost identical.

Identical? Really? Not so much....

And now, they have turned to making a "no guns list" based upon "mental illness". Which may well have been where they were going all along.

Which has been my argument from the start.

Well, it certainly seems like it's accelerated since 2008 to me. Especially in the last couple of years. Obama's supporters initially poo pooed the notion that he'd try to ban guns so he needed a pretty good excuse. And he suddenly had the best excuses in the world handed to him on a silver platter. Coincidence? Maybe. But I ain't buying it.

'Cept he hasnt tried to ban guns, even since all of this started.


continued....

reply to post by BrianFlanders

I meant that these events suddenly seemed to be getting more frequent specifically in the last few years. Just when they had a president who could afford to be anti-gun. We all know most liberals despise the Second Amendment with a passion. All that is necessary for a Democratic president to go after guns is to get the liberal base fired up. And how is that done? They gotta make 'em cry for the poor innocents.

I dont know about all of that. I know many, many liberals that are pro constitution, and thus, pro second amendment.

Well, we never have been, frankly. There are some things we really should try to change about the way we behave but speculating isn't it. We will never be taken seriously by people who are afraid to question. People do not want to be suspects. They will not come out of their bubbles until it's safe.

And you never will be, so long as no evidence is required to back these theories.

You show people some truth, they are, in my experience, more than willing to listen.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Which has been my argument from the start.

Well, at least we agree here. Guns are part of the agenda and they have their eye on an ultimate ban. But first, they can use the issue of violence to persuade the public to allow them to use psychiatry as a tool of oppression. Once that is done, they can harass and oppress anyone they want to. They'll just make up a new mental illness and they have a tailor made control mechanism.

'Cept he hasnt tried to ban guns, even since all of this started.

Sure he has. Well, I guess it would be more accurate to say that he's playing his little part in the ultimate goal. Which includes banning guns but is ultimately much larger. You don't really think anyone would try to ban them in a week, do you?

I dont know about all of that. I know many, many liberals that are pro constitution, and thus, pro second amendment.

The vast majority of liberals I have ever encountered despise the Constitution and the 2nd. It is only when it comes to the rights they personally value that they have any issues with big government. Anyone who has had a lot of contact with them will tell you the same. There are a few who will stand up for what's right but even they are often mealy mouthed and unreliable.

You show people some truth, they are, in my experience, more than willing to listen.

I disagree. Most people are visceral people. They believe what they want to believe and shut everything else out. For example - I have posted the links to the Wikipedia page about Total Information Awareness in various places at least 500 times since I first became aware of it. I have never gotten a single response, acknowledgement or changed anyone's mind with that link alone. That's the closest you can get to posting facts about what is going on. People just don't want to hear it. Most of the time even when I can post links like that to documented facts, they will still call me a nut or something.

And you know what? I have even posted that link in the last few days in various places and people still ignore it.

Remember the early reports said there was more than one gunman:

smdp.com...
One student told KCAL 9 News that there were two gunmen, including a white male with dreadlocks wearing all black. Officers were searching the 38-acre campus for a possible second gunman.

www.capitalbay.com... -was-angry-at-parents-divorce.html
An eyewitness told ABC7 cameraman Shawn MCarthy that there was indeed a second gunman who opened fire a few blocks to the east of the schools south campus.

losangeles.cbslocal.com...
James Gillespie, 20, told The Associated Press he was in the college’s library studying when he heard gunfire, and he and dozens of other students began fleeing the three-story building.
“As I was running down the stairs I saw one of the gunmen,” said Gillespie, who described the shooter as a white man in his 20s, wearing cornrows in his hair and black overalls. He said the man was carrying a shotgun. Gillespie believes there were two shooters because he heard two kinds of gunfire — a shotgun and a handgun — but only saw one person, according to the Associated Press.

www.usatoday.com...
Witnesses said he was dressed in black, wore body armor and a helmet and brandished a military-style assault rifle, a shotgun, a handgun and an ammunition belt.

Other witnesses also saw a shotgun being used, though this weapon is now no longer mentioned:

www.cnn.com...
A female witness -- who was shaken up by the ordeal and asked not to identified -- said she heard a noise, realized it was a gunshot, then took off running.
Then, in a hallway, she saw a dark-haired man whom she initially mistook for a police officer but later realized was the shooter. "(He had) a big shotgun," the woman said.

Was this weapon made to disappear because another shooter was firing it?

---------

The official version says there were two incidents of gunfire while the perp was being driven the mile from his house to the college. Yet the early info indicated there were numerous other shooting incidents:

www.scpr.org...
Nine crime scenes were under investigation by officers from 11 different law enforcement agencies, Lewis said.

www.usatoday.com...
The gunman then fled, and police believe he went on to shoot several others along the Pico Boulevard area. One shooting occurred at 28th Street and Pico Boulevard, followed by one slaying at Pico and Cloverfield boulevards and two more near 19th and Pearl streets. KABC-TV reported that another shooting, believed to be related, was reported on 21st Street, just east of campus. ....

www.scpr.org...
...police... received a call that someone was down and wounded at Centinela Avenue and Palms Boulevard...

www.latimes.com...
At a school parking lot at 20th and Pearl streets, the gunman shot two in a Ford Explorer, police said.

Did they cut down on the shooting incidents because it would have been impossible to blame all this activity on one shooter?

---------

There were initial reports that the shooter had been taken to the hospital:

www.scpr.org...
Santa Monica police say a man believed to be a suspect was shot and transported to the hospital, NBC L.A. reported.

www.capitalbay.com... -was-angry-at-parents-divorce.html
One individual, believed to be the gunman has been shot and has been transported by emergency services to hospital confirm Santa Monica Police.

Was this the other gunman, being removed from the crime scene?

---------

The incident is supposed to have been over by about 12:15pm at the latest:

www.washingtonpost.com... -cfde-11e2-8573-3baeea6a2647_story.html
Only about 20 minutes passed between the first reports of trouble and the gunman’s death, but it led to hours of fear and confusion in the balmy coastal city.

Yet oddly the emergency dispatch center kept receiving calls of 'shots fired' after the lone gunman was dead, perhaps indicating the presence of another shooter:

santamonicapd.org...
Reports of shots fired:
12:28pm at 21st street (2 blocks from the college)
2:18pm at 17nth and Cedar (1 block from the college)
2:38pm at 17nth and Pearl (right in front of the college)

Originally posted by Gastovski
What I want to know is why are his magazines blue

What is wrong with blue?
www.keepshooting.com...

Two of the dead were allegedly shot to death in this vehicle.

Where are the busted up front headlight/turn signal assemblies? Where is the rear window?



Where is the rear license plate?


Where is the bent 'rebar' from the brick wall?

They got this car our of a junkyard!

People seem to miss a few things that make this a conspiracy. How about his fathers sister? Nada Zawahri. She is a traveling State Department Professor who does conflict resolution work on water ways. Sounds innocent until you find out where. Just about every hot spot on the map where war is going on. Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Palestine and so on. And then you have her brother a person with a ham radio licence which is great for communicating with some one around the world from you. Then you have his son go to his house and shoot him? Did he use this ham radio? When was the last time it was used? Is there a way to find records on his call sign? And after this guy shoots his father and his brother he goes to a college and walks into a room with foreign students who work for companies tied to CIA and State Department who offer products to other countries. The board members give a way that they are not selling clothing. why would big wigs tied into communications,internet,computer equipment of all kinds be interested in a small company selling a small line of clothes?

reply to post by Magister


People never seem to think of how easy it is with shots and makeup and small changes to use the same people.

Santa Monica False Flag Pushing the Envelope Posted on June 10, 2013 by Henry Shivley

www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com...

The coup de grace:

www.nydailynews.com...
Coria was a campus resource officer teaching a seminar on bullying and reporting threats in 2006 when she first took notice of Zawahri sitting at the back of a classroom.
“I remember him specifically because he had the long hair,” Coria said. “He had the black outfit on, the black trench coat, the black boots. He was very thin. He just had that isolated look.”

As predicted in my profile of these types of manipulated shooting events:

signofthetimes.yuku.com...

reply to post by BrianFlanders

Sure he has. Well, I guess it would be more accurate to say that he's playing his little part in the ultimate goal. Which includes banning guns but is ultimately much larger. You don't really think anyone would try to ban them in a week, do you?

Its been 5 years. And clinton, the other guy that was "supposed" to ban guns, was in there for 8. Just like Bush was "supposed" to ban abortion, as was his pappy. Funny how these things never actually happen, isnt it? They are political selling points.

Now, dont get me wrong, the attack on our freedoms is quite apparent. Im just saying Ive heard the "this guy is going to ban _____!" many times before.

Personally, when I step back and look at the bigger picture, i see these topics being used as a distraction.

The vast majority of liberals I have ever encountered despise the Constitution and the 2nd. It is only when it comes to the rights they personally value that they have any issues with big government. Anyone who has had a lot of contact with them will tell you the same. There are a few who will stand up for what's right but even they are often mealy mouthed and unreliable.

Here's the thing. Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Tea Partier....they are all bastardized versions of what those terms actually mean.

Every REAL liberal I have ever met believes whole-heartedly in the constitution, as does every REAL conservative.

I disagree. Most people are visceral people. They believe what they want to believe and shut everything else out.

People need time to come to grips with things. Most intelligent people, though, do just that.

For example - I have posted the links to the Wikipedia page about Total Information Awareness in various places at least 500 times since I first became aware of it. I have never gotten a single response, acknowledgement or changed anyone's mind with that link alone. That's the closest you can get to posting facts about what is going on.

Posted where? If its where I think, your problem may be the outlet you are using.

People just don't want to hear it. Most of the time even when I can post links like that to documented facts, they will still call me a nut or something.

Again, consider your outlet.