That's only for link or image posts, unless something has changed.

Youre correct, plus a 3 word SS wouldnt fly if required.

Or just that info gets distorted after something like this. I dont thing false flag is a good word to use with something like this happening

Is there a word/phrase for an event that is orchestrated to take the media heat away from another story they don't want people to know about?

Yes, but unfortunately saying it here is like throwing a puppy in a dog fight.

red herring

Sliding.

Opportunity = an event that probably happened as reported but then gets used for political, social, or military reasons (ironically then causing people to question the validity of the otiginal event).

"Never waste a good opportunity" -CFR

Like when they report every crime committed by an immigrant or Muslim?

except for Vegas. Waste the biggest one for some reason....

Eh, there were some slight rumblings about gun control, but with Republicans controlling every branch of government there wasn't really any major push. There was also talk of banning bumpstocks. Even Trump and the NRA were on board with that one, but no clue what ever happened with that. There was also some attempt online to blame liberals (because it was a country music concert that was attacked and clearly only conservatives like country /s). But yeah, other than that it seemed like no one wanted to touch it. I'm not sure how that sits with some of the conspiracy theories though, because what better way to distract from what actually happened than to make it super political and let people fight over gun rights or mental health or whatever else you want.

I find it a little disheartening that the first reaction by this sub is "who planned these dead kids to push their agenda?" and never considers the conspiracy that dead kids are a byproduct of a pro-gun conspiracy that simply exists to make money. I understand that r/conspiracy isnt the place to discuss how sad we are that kids got shot, but it's extremely disingenuous to have a conclusion and build a theory around events to fit that.

I dunno, this sub is weird sometimes. If it's not a massive circle jerk, it's a cock fight.

Guns are one of the things let loose from Pandora's Box. You can't put them back in, and if you try to suppress them you give terrorists a huge advantage, like the terrorist attacks in France, including non-gun attacks.

because Chicago isn't a microcosm. You can write whatever laws you want, if someone can drive 4 hours and buy a UHaul worth of guns and dump them in Englewood, then the law isn't doing anything. If that's what you're saying, I agree. If you're saying "gun laws don't do anything", the entire rest of the world would disagree.

You mention terrorist attacks. Can you point to a single terrorist attack that was prevented by relaxed gun control laws? I'm not being rhetorical because I feel like there was one, but I can't find reference of it.

I agree.

thanks, bot.

If it's stopped by defensive gun use, then it's not a terrorist attack with a high body count and it doesn't make national news.

right, but the NYC times square bomber was prevented by being a shitty bomb maker. the London airport terrorist was prevented by a guy who tore his tendon kicking him in the balls while he was on fire. You'd think if such a scenario existed, the NRA would have it on their home page in font size 70 bold lettering.

The NYC Times Square bomber was groomed by the government to justify more anti-terror funding. He was given intentionally bad plans so people wouldn't get killed.

if someone can drive 4 hours and buy a UHaul worth of guns and dump them in Englewood, then the law isn't doing anything

The thing is, those guns would have to be bought by someone who lives in a different state (at least for handguns, which account for the vast majority of gun crime). People who buy more than a few guns at one time or regularly buy one or two over the course of a month or year definitely get the ATF's attention. then, that person has to cross state lines, and then sell them to people he/she knows are prohibited possessors. The buying multiples at once is the only part of this that doesn't already include a felony, and doing that regularly attracts the attention of the feds.

It's not the lack of laws, its the disregard for laws already in place.

From what I remember, the NRA was "open to a discussion" about bumpstocks, and when that discussion happened they shot it down (no pun intended)

Oh, I had never heard that follow up! I just remember their initial statement they released in the days after the shooting that basically said "real sportsmen have no need for a silly toy like this, so we are okay with banning them". I didn't realize they have opposed the ban since then.

Honestly, I think that was an old school blood sacrifice

Opportunity for...?

So we have senators in office millions deep in NRA money that don’t even want to have a discussion about the almost 20 mass shootings this year and I’m going to get called a shill and political opportunist for being concerned that the only thing these mass shootings are accomplishing are surges of money going into the gun lobbies pockets? Maybe that’s the real conspiracy

Yes you are going to get called a shill. Don't act offended; if you will not respect the second amendment, there is no reason to let you use the first.

Do you feel that easy access to guns is the reason for all of these mass shootings? If not, what would be your solution to stopping these rampages? I’m from Canada and while getting a gun isn’t hard, we don’t suffer from nearly as many acts of extreme gun violence as you do. My only real question is how do we stop these tragedies from happening??

We make the kids feel more involved.

That's not an answer, that's a lazy soundbite.

It's the fucking truth. You need to communicate with kids more. Make them feel welcomed to adulthood. Stop being a thorn in societies side.

its an interesting concept, having a few teachers and selected volunteer students, like jrotc, train to react to a school shooting.

No, I mean, you reach out to these kids well beforehand. Make them ok with life. I'm hearing quotes like, "they knew this kid would do this" "he shouldn't be allowed near the school with a backpack" obviously, someone needed to reach out to him and help him. Not that he's a victim here in this case, but we need to acknowledge the weak and bring them up to par.

i agree with you there as well, one could only commit such an act if they felt completely isolated from humanity. i was just thinking that including kids in the potential response and informing ones who are interested to bolo for certain signs of students in distress, it would also make them more likely to reach out to potential school shooters before they felt isolated enough to do such a thing.

School and mass shootings surely have multiple reasons and the lack of comfort and social integration in your community and society definitely creates anger, sociopathy and violence. With respect to this point, do you think other developed countries are massively better regarding social integration of young adults into society or where do you think this discrepancy comes from?

I think our society has abandoned a certain aspect and family and community. I think a family in a poor country may have more family values despite the lack of resources and the sometimes bad publicity . I think here, it's just a giant race of education and popularity and it drains the positive before the negative.

More exposure to guns.

Seriously, less fear mongering and more safety lessons surrounding them

How would that have prevented this mass shooting? I think the attacker quite aware what damage his gun would do.

People would learn not to stand in front of the barrel!

every teacher needs to concealed carry and have a machine gun mounted on their desk to be constantly pointed at the students

they should also place claymore mines in strategic location like hallways and classrooms. That and a few bouncing bettys on the football field should do the trick.

Ahh kinda like a scorched earth policy. Shooters can’t kill anyone if everyone is dead. Brilliant.. I think perhaps half the problem is until it’s your family member that’s involved no one actually cares.

Most people care. Problem is,the people in positions to do something have all been paid to not care. That or they are sociopaths.

Aren’t the people in power voted in? Is it because the gun control lobbyists have less money than the NRA and as such can’t buy people in power? If that’s the case than couldn’t the people en masse vote in someone new who favors gun control?

if you will not respect the second amendment,

We just need better mental health precautions in regard to gun ownership. I would not mind it being regulated in the manner of driver's licenses. Sure there would be a database of gun owners, but that is almost certainly already active.

That's some nice retoric you've got there, but like all retoric, it's ultimately meaningless. Let's not forget the fact that the USA has easily the highest homicide rate of the developed world. And don't give me that fantasy about protecting yourself against the govt--do you really think Raptisoft and his hunting rifle are going to make a difference against a drone army?

do you really think Raptisoft and his hunting rifle are going to make a difference against a drone army?

Armed Switzerland did okay against German agression in WW2.

How well did Holland do?

Might want to check your source on that.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

Thanks for proving his point.

You're only proving my point; I wouldn't exactly call the countries that do worse than the USA 'developed'.

My bad h ommie, missed 'developed'.

And don't give me that fantasy about protecting yourself against the govt--do you really think Raptisoft and his hunting rifle are going to make a difference against a drone army?

The argument that people make about owning guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government isn't as silly as you try to make it. The objective would not be to "win" against the military. The objective would be to force the government / military to kill its own citizens in very large numbers in order to accomplish whatever "bad thing" that they're doing in any given scenario.

So, instead of the government / military forces being able to safely go around arresting people for no good reason, they would be met with fierce resistance and be forced to kill a lot of their own people. Would they be willing to do that? Maybe. But it's a deterrent.

This isn't my argument - I don't own any weapons - I don't predict a future tyrannical government that would do anything on the level required to get such a reaction out of people. But you're over-simplifying what these people say.

Just look at what has been happening in Syria. The main point that outsiders make is that Assad is "killing his own people". That's bad PR. They don't care that some of "his own people" are also trying to kill him. That makes these outsiders want to bomb the shit out of Assad and his military.

That's actually a good point, thanks for enlightening me.

you really think Raptisoft and his hunting rifle are going to make a difference against a drone army?

Yes, the government can't fight its own armed populace and continue functioning at the same time. Tanks and planes have armor, government employees do not.

Why would I be offended when I didn't say a god damn thing about disrespecting the second amendment.

thank you. idk why people see to glance over this possibility. its can explain a lot of oddities. for example i wouldnt be surprised if these things events occurred and the media wanted to push a certain narrative thus staged phone calls from people claiming to be involved in it when they actually werent and then saying things that fit the narrative or message the news wants to push.

for example, in the early goings a student who was present had a 2-3 minutes convo with the reporter and then the reporter randonly starts asking about his instagram and mentions that the caller posted an instagram video of the shooting. they then play the video and its actually the edited video that pauses and shows the computer screen with holes in it. so clearly not the callers video as it was the edited version to hilight the computer bullet holes. they then quickly moved onto the caller saying the shooter had used instagram to post pics of guns and "other sick stuff"

my issue is if the caller had all this video on instagram and knew all this info about the shooter, who he said he didnt know at the beginning of the interview, why not lead with all that? the interviews throughout the day seemed forced and awkward, but that in no way impacts the reality of the events, simply the calls into question the coverage and the media's credibility.

Let's be objective and respectful to the families and people who were killed.

Presupposing that anybody died or got hurt.

You must be new here.

Perhaps you have never heard of the Nayirah Testimony.

It turns out that the telescreen and government officials lie about death all the time.

And they get away with it. Easily. The masses are complete lemmings.

Or. Perhaps "they" see how reactionary and impulsive a certain group of people are, and actually manipulate them into going 180 degrees in the opposite direction that they think they are going. Kind of like the first episode of the new X Files. Much more believable IMHO.

What happened?

School shooting is being held as a false flag attack by some and maybe called a hoax by others.

Not too sure how much heart I'd put into it or similar theories, but their intent is to draw the distinction between having people not die/"fake" or hoax in a event versus a false flag which would mean a real event that is conspired to accumulate power in some form or fashion in reaction to the event

Turn on the news

Let's be objective and respectful to the families and people who were killed.

Pretty please? Conspiracy theories don't have to be weaponized.

The internet makes that too easy to get around.

The weaponization is to discredit investigators, other than very gullible and those with mental health issues, no one actually believes in the stupid “crisis actors no one died” crap. That is entirely disinformation to smear anyone looking into legitimate discrepancies with official narratives and cover stories.

Anyone who thinks the people who pull the strings would balk at killing people and instead take an insanely huge risk of hiring hundreds and thousands of actors to fake them is either mislead, unintelligent, or spreading disinfo. No loose ends is the mantra of even the most low-level criminals.

Anyone who thinks the people who pull the strings would balk at killing people and instead take an insanely huge risk of hiring hundreds and thousands of actors to fake them is either mislead, unintelligent, or spreading disinfo.

Yeah they don't mind killing people to accomplish goals.

The number of people they can kill is limited by spiritual laws, so they sometimes stage hoaxes to fake higher kills numbers.

They would kill millions of people if they could (and they have the tech to do) but they are not allowed by higher forces to do so.

Lots of people believe in "crisis actors"

The number of people they can kill is limited by spiritual laws, so they sometimes stage hoaxes to fake higher kill numbers.

They certainly want to and would kill millions of people if they could (and they have the tech to do) but they are not allowed by higher forces to do so.

What!?

Ok, I am not going to try to argue with what amounts to your religious beliefs, but I want to ask how you square that idea with the atomic bombs on Japan?

I don’t buy into any of this spiritual or satanic or otherwise magical stuff regarding politics. These are psychopathic narcissists who are motivated by greed and pleasure, not some religious devotion imo. The explanations for ritual abuse are easily found in the writings of The Marquee de Sade rather than in Aleister Crowley; the boredom of having anything you want motivates some to attempt to find thrills in the most taboo and extreme acts possible.

There is a certain thrill to criminal risk for most everyone (that is why teens shoplift pointless objects or vandalize buildings). When a person is so wealthy and powerful that they can, literally, get away with murder, there are very few ways to seek a thrill that pushes the limits or may actually provide a risk that isn’t deranged and grotesque. (I mean others like Branson skydive and climb mountains, but there are plenty of deviants.)

The amount of deaths and mayhem the Cabal is allowed to cause depends upon the level of consciousness of our planet's population.

The more negative thoughts we collectively send out the more damage the Cabal is authorized to do.

70 years ago the people were at a much lover vibratory level. This allowed the Cabal massive amounts of atrocities which were experienced as WW2. They could not do this today anymore.

Thankyou for the clarification alot of people muddle the two.

When was the false flag? Details please

The Florida High School shooting. there's quite few posts on the "hot" page of the sub right now.

Thanks

I swear wait for some damn details guys shit. Sometimes a crazy kid actually is just a crazy kid. Just wait a day.

There is video out now on liveleak of dead students on the ground. Denying this evidence proves one would be reaching for conclusions rather than accepting the facts.

There was a video of dead people on the ground in Las Vegas but that didn’t stop people from claiming nobody died.

"crisis actors, OBVIOUSLY.€

There is video out now on liveleak of dead students on the ground. Denying this evidence proves one would be reaching for conclusions rather than accepting the facts.

I’m keeping a eye out for crisis actors.

I’ve seen a few duping delights on Tucker Carlson. The eyewitnesses always give it away.

respectful to the families and people who were killed

Do you think the families are hanging around here?

Also, respect towards the families involves getting to the truth, whatever it may be. To get there, there is no other way than to formulate hypothesis and possibly falsifying them.

Amazing all these posts telling us how to think. As far as I’m concerned they are counter-productive.

If you intend well, you must realize the most common argument in favor of the government-peddled conspiracy on 911 is “don’t ask question because this disrespects the families”. It is a disgusting tactic they use and which exploits, for criminal purposes, the human qualities of empathy and love.

Hoax = The Moon Landing, The Patterson Film, Alien Autopsy

False Flag = 9/11, Las Vegas, Guadelupe Hidalgo

Alien Autopsy was a hoax yes the other two were not.

The Patterson film was admitted hoax tho.

By who? The filmmakers have never said it was a hoax. Do more research. The guy who said he wore the suit is lying.

I'm pretty sure they did. But also have you seen the footage stabilized? Its pretty damming further as just a guy in a suit.

Patterson or Gimlin have NEVER said the footage was a hoax or fake. I have seen and studied the footage with 25 years. The bigfoot has BREAST. Believe what you want but I can see you have done NO research when you say "I pretty sure they did say it was fake"

Pretty sure its just a dude in an ape Costume

It's interesting...

Republicans use terrorist attacks to justify tougher immigration policy. Democrats counter by stating, "do you know the probability of you be attacked by a terrorist? It is miniscule." This is a justifiable argument, and one not based on emotions.

Democrats use school shootings/mass shootings to justify tougher gun legislation. Republicans counter by stating, "do you know the probability of you being killed by a gun? Is that probability worth jeopardizing the 2nd Amendment?" This is a justifiable argument, and one not based on emotions.

Stop using rare events to push your politics.

False flag= happened but under different circumstances than officially stated to produce a certain outcome.

False Flags are attacks purposely made to look as if it was done by someone other than the real perpetrators. The attack is then used as pretense to bomb the people being blamed.

9/11 Missing Links is great for learning how False Flags are done and used against a perceived enemy.

do you really think Raptisoft and his hunting rifle are going to make a difference against a drone army?

Armed Switzerland did okay against German agression in WW2.

How well did Holland do?

Might want to check your source on that.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

And don't give me that fantasy about protecting yourself against the govt--do you really think Raptisoft and his hunting rifle are going to make a difference against a drone army?

The argument that people make about owning guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government isn't as silly as you try to make it. The objective would not be to "win" against the military. The objective would be to force the government / military to kill its own citizens in very large numbers in order to accomplish whatever "bad thing" that they're doing in any given scenario.

So, instead of the government / military forces being able to safely go around arresting people for no good reason, they would be met with fierce resistance and be forced to kill a lot of their own people. Would they be willing to do that? Maybe. But it's a deterrent.

This isn't my argument - I don't own any weapons - I don't predict a future tyrannical government that would do anything on the level required to get such a reaction out of people. But you're over-simplifying what these people say.

Just look at what has been happening in Syria. The main point that outsiders make is that Assad is "killing his own people". That's bad PR. They don't care that some of "his own people" are also trying to kill him. That makes these outsiders want to bomb the shit out of Assad and his military.

The NYC Times Square bomber was groomed by the government to justify more anti-terror funding. He was given intentionally bad plans so people wouldn't get killed.

you really think Raptisoft and his hunting rifle are going to make a difference against a drone army?

Yes, the government can't fight its own armed populace and continue functioning at the same time. Tanks and planes have armor, government employees do not.