Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Is that a man running with a rifle?

"Is The New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts By Sowing Suspicion?" (Johnstone).  We have to allow for the possibility that Trump planted this story.  There is a strategy of promoting mayhem for marketing purposes:  "Donald Trump bodyslams, beats and shaves Vince McMahon at Wrestlemania XXIII".

"Does Brazil Also Have a 'Lucky Larry,' or Should I say 'Senor Lucky Larry?'" (Bacon).  Like Zim pulling out of the WRC months before 9/11, or all those Jewish businessmen deciding to go into to work late on September 11, 2001, the torah took a fortuitous walk just before the fire, with the timing adjusted by the (((media))) to make it seem less suspicious.

"Canadian politicians lead unprecedented smear campaign against advocate for Palestinian rights" (Engler).  Besides the audacity of denouncing somebody for calling for politicians to stand up against death threats, we see yet another example of the surprising - surprising as the (((media))) simply doesn't cover it - levels of actual violence and threats of violence by the Khazars against gentiles.  Anti-gentilism is real, and extremely violent.

"Trump’s swamp is drowning Washington" (Madsen).  Good details on Lewandowski's lobbying firms.

"Butina prosecutors wrote their own James Bond novel with sex allegations – and the media loved it".  It is funny that Butina is a spy, but Mangiante is just your everyday child abduction lawyer/political advisor to various Eurotrash men/'Italian'/stinktank employee/actress/associate of a man who simply cannot be found/wife of a victim of the IC sting on the Trump campaign.  Nothing abnormal about this at all!

"Gaius Publius: Big Oil Seeks Billions from U.S. Government to Protect It From…Climate Change".  Assholia is a country where people stand up to their necks in water with their hair on fire screaming that climate change isn't real, while the causers of said climate change calmly line up at the trough for government gibs to recompense themselves for the costs of it

"Is A New Crisis Brewing In The Saudi Royal Family?" (Widdershoven).  This appears to be MbS paid PR, damage control for the indications of unrest.

"Target Syria" (Giraldi).  If Trump thinks he can overcome the mid-term enthusiasm gap between Democrats and his base by starting a War For The Jews in October, one based on particularly outrageous lies, he is going to be sadly mistaken, and impeached, and probably in jail, within a year.

"Trump’s Psyche and the Threat of Force" (Goodman).  1973, 2018 - Khazar treason agents working for Israel manoeuvre a President against Russia for the sole benefit of Zionist colonialism.

"Kamikaze from California" (Shamir).  The goyim still don't realize that denialism is exactly what the Khazar supremacists want, as it fits right into their ideology that the main issue in the world is irrational Jew-hatred, proving that the Jews are incapable of doing anything wrong or being criticized by the irrationally-hating goyim.  The truth, that 'white' Khazars (think of people like the Rothschilds, or today, also the Kagans or Kristols) conspired with some German officials, including Eichmann, to stage an attack on the impure -  impure as their Khazar blood had been intermixed with gentile blood over the centuries of intermingling - shtetl dwellers, both to clean up the supremacist race and provide a 'refugee crisis' which could stock the land they intended to steal in the Middle East, is much, much worse for Khazar supremacism than the idea that the Holocaust is fiction.  A few 'white' Khazars died in the confusion, but most hurried to escape (the evidence of which are all the claims now being made for reparations for art sold by rich Jews, supposedly at a big discount, due to the fact they left in such a hurry!).

"American Pravda: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" (Unz).  "9/11 Was an Israeli Job" (Guyénot) (too much 'truther' crap, the best of which only proves Khazar foreknowledge, an issue which isn't in doubt).  There are two big problems with this, one rhetorical, and one based on the mechanics of any possible conspiracy, based on years of examples of conspiracies that we have all seen.  The rhetorical problem is, again, that this kind of speculation plays right into the hands of the supremacist Khazars, who will say 'see, the goyim keep making up these ridiculous lies against us based solely on their irrational Jew-hatred, meaning that anything else they say about us, including, say, any criticisms of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, or criticisms of the constant warmongering to trick Americans into fighting Wars For The Jews, is similarly motivated and suspect!'  The conspiracy problem is that there is no evidence that the Jews had sufficient control over the gatekeepers like NORAD, control which would have been required for the whole conspiracy to work.  There is lots of evidence of Jewish/Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11, but 9/11 had to be an inside job of the American government at many levels, which had more to do with deep structural/spiritual problems within Assholia (and failure to admit these problems leads to typical Assholian lack of discipline in analyzing the real problem).  And again, criticizing without hard evidence just plays into their hands and allows them to deflect all criticism of what we all know they are actually doing.  The Unz essay is particularly clumsy (he's promising possibly to rewrite it), where the 'turn' in the argument - where he moves from setting up the conclusion to the conclusion itself - is very weak:
"Cheney and Rumsfeld had both spent decades as stalwarts of the moderate pro-business wing of the Republican Party, each serving in top government positions and also CEOs of major corporations. The notion that they capped their careers by joining a new Republican administration in early 2001 and immediately began organizing a gigantic false-flag terrorist attack upon the proudest towers of our largest city together with our own national military headquarters, hoping to kill many thousands of Americans in the process, is too ridiculous to even be part of a leftist political satire.

Let’s step back a bit. In the entire history of the world, I can think of no documented case in which the top political leadership of a country launched a major false-flag attack upon its own centers of power and finance and tried to kill large numbers of its own people."
What Unz calls "too ridiculous to even be part of a leftist political satire" I consider to be normal operating procedure in the Assholian government, with many, many examples.  Still, Unz at his worst still has his moments (and note that he points out that American authorities could easily arrest the real perps of the anthrax attacks if they wanted to, as identifying them is a no-brainer):
". . . the complete ideological triumph of the Neocons after the 9/11 attacks was all the more shocking given their recent political missteps. During the 2000 presidential campaign, nearly all of the Neocons had aligned themselves with Sen. John McCain, whose battle with Bush for the Republican nomination had eventually turned quite bitter, and as a consequence, they had been almost totally frozen out of high-level appointments. Both Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were then widely regarded as Bush Republicans, lacking any significant Neocon ties, and the same was true for all the other top administration figures such as Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, and Paul O’Neil. Indeed, the only Neoconservative figure offered a Cabinet spot was Linda Chavez, and not only was the Labor Department always regarded as something of a boobie prize in a GOP Administration, but she was ultimately forced to withdraw her nomination due to her “nanny problems.” The highest-ranking Neocon serving under Bush was Rumsfeld Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, whose seemingly inconsequential appointment had been almost totally ignored by everyone.

Most of the Neocons themselves certainly seemed to recognize the catastrophic defeat they had suffered in the 2000 election. Back in those days, I was on very friendly terms with Bill Kristol, and when I stopped by his office at the Weekly Standard for a chat in the spring of 2001, he seemed in a remarkably depressed state of mind. I remember that at one point, he took his head in his hands and wondered whether it was time for him to just abandon the political battle, resigning his editorship and taking up a quiet post at a DC thinktank. Yet just eight or ten months later, he and his close allies were on their way to gaining overwhelming influence in our government, an eirie parallel to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Lenin in Zurich. The totally fortuitous 9/11 attacks and the outbreak of war had suddenly allowed a small but committed ideological faction to seize control of a gigantic country."
and (if you've read this blog, which most of my critics clearly haven't, you will know I've been droning on about as cruise missile fired from Fort Meade or Andrews Air Force Base for years):
"In addition, an old friend of mine with strong connections to elite French circles at some point shared what he regarded as an amusing anecdote. He mentioned that at a private dinner party in Paris attended by influential political and media figures, France’s former Defense Minister had told the other disbelieving guests that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile rather than a civilian jetliner. My friend explained that the minister in question was widely regarded as extremely intelligent and level-headed, thereby proving that even the most highly reputable individuals may sometimes believe in utterly crazy things.

But I interpreted those same facts very differently. France probably possessed one of the four or five best intelligence service in the world, and surely a French Defense Minister would be privy to better information about true events than a typical media pundit. In fact, one of the earliest books sharply questioning the official 9/11 narrative was 9/11: The Big Lie by French journalist Thierry Meyssan, which appeared in 2002 and similarly argued that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile, perhaps suggesting that it may have been partly influenced by leaks coming from French Intelligence."
Now, this is good, really good, the kind of analysis I'd like to see more of, comparing the attacks on American legislatures, and the 'unity' it provokes, to a similar issue in Canada:  "9/11 Truth: War on Terror or “War on Democracy”? The Physical Intimidation of Legislatures" (McQueen) (my emphasis in red):
"And now we arrive at the fourth and last case from the annals of the War on Terror to be reviewed today. This is the invasion of the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa on October 22, 2014.
Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette has recalled her experience in her Senate office:
At 2:30 p.m., to cries of “Police,” my assistant opens the office’s main door. He comes face to face with soldiers aiming their machine guns at him and ordering him to put his hands in the air. One by one, our doors are opened and the soldiers point their guns at my other assistants who exit their offices, hands in the air, as if they were criminals… The door we go through is destroyed; glass has exploded all over the floor. The door across the hallway has also been knocked in. Glass litters the hallway. There are more than 50 people crammed into four offices, everyone talking to one another…
I sit near the open window. I’m breathing but stunned: parliamentarians are under the command of the military. Parliament is in the hands of the armed forces.
The persons holding the automatic weapons were almost certainly federal police officers, not members of the armed forces, but for our purposes today the distinction may not be important. Men in camouflage clothing with heavy boots, helmets, and automatic weapons would have been hard for most Canadians to identify. Let us simply say that security forces took control of Parliament. The image fits the theme of this talk very well.
But you are thinking: naturally they took control—an armed gunman was running down the hall shooting!
Yes, but let us look a bit more closely at the affair.
I want to begin by saying I do not pretend to have sorted out the facts of this attack. I am not in a position to say with confidence that the RCMP were complicit. But, in a report I have written on this incident, The October 22, 2014, Ottawa Shooting: Why Canadians Need a Public Inquiry, I do claim that (a) there are very serious unanswered questions about this series of incidents (I list 32 questions), (b) the RCMP have given both misleading and false information to the public and (c) in any serious inquiry the possibility of RCMP complicity would have to be considered.
The RCMP are, of course, the ones in charge of the investigation of the October 22, 2014 events. But this simply illustrates the dilemma faced by citizens in North America. The agencies charged with investigating acts of alleged Islamic terrorism have a proven record of incitement, entrapment and framing. They would, for this reason, be treated as suspects within an uncorrupted system of policing and litigation.
When we look for recognition of this obvious truth in mainstream North America media today we will seldom find it. I saw not a single person interviewed on television or radio, or quoted in mainstream newspapers, in Canada in the days after the October 22, 2014 attacks, who was willing to raise this as a serious possibility.
Drawing on the 2013 Canada Day case, we might ask our question this way: Could the 2014 impoverished drug addict from Vancouver (Zehaf-Bibeau) have been assisted by the RCMP the way the 2013 impoverished drug addict from Vancouver (Nuttall) was assisted? Could the two acts of intimidation of the people’s elected representatives have belonged to the same pattern of police behavior?
Before entering into the critical questioning of the mainstream account of October 22, I draw attention to the triad we have seen before: Threat, Unity, Reaction.
Let us begin with threat. After allegedly shooting Corporal Cirillo at the War Memorial the suspect, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, made it to the Centre Block of Parliament. The Conservative caucus, including Mr. Harper, was assembled behind a door on one side of the central Hall of Honour, while the New Democratic Party was assembled behind a door on the other side. To the astonishment and horror of the MPs, a barrage of shooting broke out in the Hall.
Globe and Mail reporter Josh Wingrove caught the gunfire (second volley) on his Blackberry, and the showing of this video footage gave the public a dramatic sense of what MPs, hunkered down behind poorly barricaded doors off the main hall, heard at that time.
Oct. 22, 2014 (from Wingrove video): just before the 2nd volley of shots in Centre Block.
Oct. 22, 2014 (from Wingrove video): just before the 2nd volley of shots in Centre Block.
Volley one, which had occurred prior to the volley caught on this video, had roughly the same number of shots as volley two.
So MPs certainly felt threatened. The danger was emphasized by the CBC, which said on October 22 that the perpetrator may have fired 30 shots in the Hall of Honour. John Baird, then the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said on Anderson Cooper’s TV show on October 23 that if Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers had not killed Zehaf-Bibeau a dozen people might have been killed.
It turned out these statements were based on fantasy. The evidence we now have suggests that the suspect, Zehaf-Bibeau, ran into Centre Block with two bullets in his rifle. His firearm was a lever-action hunting rifle—a model first produced in 1894. Zehaf-Bibeau’s goals at that point are not clear, but he fired his two bullets, hitting no one (security guard Samearn Son appears to have been hit in the leg by a ricochet) and at one point he declined to shoot a security guard he was facing at point blank range. In the space between volleys he seems to have loaded one more bullet in his rifle, which he fired—again hitting no one—just before dying in a hail of bullets less than two minutes after entering the building. He did not, therefore, shoot 30 times; he shot three times. And he was in no position to kill a dozen people. Of the roughly 59 shots heard by MPs, 56 were fired by police with semi-automatic 9mm handguns.
While it is important to sort out these facts, it remains true that the feeling of threat experienced by MPs was intense. They heard a huge barrage of shots, could not see what was going on, and felt at risk.
How about the next member of our triad, unity?
We have a remarkable piece of footage from the next day, October 23, fully as striking as the singing of God Bless America on the steps of the Capitol. Kevin Vickers, apparently one of the two men who killed Zehaf-Bibeau, was Sergeant-at-Arms and regularly carried the mace into Parliament. (The mace represents the authority of the Speaker and the right of the House, transmitted to it by the crown, to pass laws.) When Mr. Vickers entered Parliament with the mace on October 23 he was given a prolonged standing ovation by the House, with members of all political parties enthusiastically participating.
In addition to this particular symbolic statement of unity we saw in Canada the embraces familiar to us from the U.S. incidents of the fall of 2001. The Canadian Prime Minister signaled his trans-party solidarity with Mr. Trudeau of the Liberal Party and Mr. Mulcair of the NDP with hugs.
Post-event hugs, October 2014: Harper and Mulcair, Harper and Trudeau.
Post-event hugs, October 2014: Harper and Mulcair, Harper and Trudeau.
So we had threat and we had unity. The third element is reaction, which possesses two components. Internally, citizens and their representatives are all supposed to pull together, sacrificing civil rights or having them sacrificed on their behalf. Externally, they are to fling themselves at the enemy—whoever has been assigned that role.
In Prime Minister Harper’s speech on October 22 he made clear, albeit in genteel and delicate language, that he intended to move ahead on both fronts: to give more power to national security agencies at home while joining with allies in military action abroad.
This week’s events are a grim reminder that Canada is not immune to the types of terrorist attacks we have seen elsewhere around the world…this will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts and those of our national security agencies to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats and keep Canada safe here at home, just as it will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts to work with our allies around the world and fight against the terrorist organizations who brutalize those in other countries with the hope of bringing their savagery to our shores. They will have no safe haven.
The forms this reaction took are well known. Internally we had the passage of a series of bills, including the famous Bill C-51. Externally, we found the victim of the War Memorial shooting, Corporal Cirillo, quickly exploited in Iraq.
So we have the triad found in the War on Terror in its autumn, 2001 manifestation. The presence of death in the October 22 events has guaranteed that the pattern will be deeply inscribed in people’s consciousness. The absence of killing in the B.C. bombers incident is, I am convinced, one of the reasons the incident has had relatively little impact in Canada. In fact, the lengthy court case associated with this incident—still not resolved as this talk is being given—has embarrassed the RCMP at the same time the lack of casualties has left the Canadian population uninterested. The operation cannot be called a success.
Would it not be tempting for police, after such a failure, to mount an operation in which there are deaths to draw people’s attention and where the perpetrator or patsy is killed in the operation so that there will never be a court case?
I am aware that I have to this point offered no evidence that the October 22, 2014 incident was planned or carried out with police complicity. Let me now, therefore, look at selected aspects of the RCMP’s performance and foreknowledge. In my view these are sufficiently peculiar, even if they were the only anomalies encountered, to justify a public inquiry. For other problematic issues in the case my report may be consulted.
I begin with a question: Where did the most blatant security failure occur, which allowed the suspect to make it into a building of Parliament after shooting Mr. Cirillo at the War Memorial? The answer is that the main security failure occurred between the time he emerged from his car in front of the bollards near East Block until the time he entered the doors of Centre Block. This zone was the responsibility of the RCMP. As he stepped onto Parliament Hill he was no longer the responsibility of the Ottawa police, and as he entered Centre Block he became the responsibility of House of Commons security. In between the RCMP was responsible.
Now, during that brief period when he was the responsibility of the RCMP he ran from the bollards along the grass in front of the East Block, his keffiya over the lower part of his face, his long hair flowing, and his Winchester rifle in his hands. He hijacked a black ministerial car in front of East Block. The driver got out and ran away at top speed. The suspect then got into the black car with his rifle and drove straight to Centre Block. On his way he passed two white RCMP vehicles. Neither moved to intercept him, although either one could have done so. Neither seems to have made a serious effort to catch him or intercept him on the rest of his journey to Centre Block, although they followed him to his destination.
Black hijacked car (circled), heading in direction of top of frame, has just driven past two white RCMP vehicles.
Black hijacked car (circled), heading in direction of top of frame, has just driven past two white RCMP vehicles.
I am not interested in blaming the officers in these two cars. The more important issue is the fact that the RCMP has such a thin and permeable line of security, not to mention a communications system that performed very badly. Two cars between the suspect and Parliament, each with one officer, neither of whom seemed to expect anything and neither of whom appeared to have heard the 911 calls from the War Memorial? Neither of whom appears to have been able to warn the House of Commons security, who were, therefore, caught off guard when Zehaf-Bibeau burst through the door?
We now know, thanks to a CBC access to information request, that the RCMP were short by at least 29 persons in their Parliament Hill security at that time. We also know that the extra patrols in the vicinity that the RCMP had mounted in mid-October due to various incidents had been halted two days before the October 22 incident.
Am I being a Monday morning quarterback? Will you object that it is all very well to bemoan this reduction of security in retrospect but that the RCMP could not possibly have known of the danger at the time? Well, I certainly would have thought that the killing of a soldier at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu two days earlier by an apparent “terrorist” would have led to some tightening of security. But, beyond that, there were plenty of signs of danger.
We are now touching on one of the most explosive aspects of the October 22, 2014 case, namely advance warnings. If we turn to the RCMP and ask what was the stated and official position we find it set out very clearly. Commissioner Paulson said without hesitation that there had been “no advance warning.” Is this true? Consider the following list:
(1) October 8, 2014
Warning: potential “knife and gun” attacks inside Canada.
Source: NBC News, crediting US intelligence sources, in turn crediting Canadian authorities. The warning was quickly denied by Canadian authorities.
(2) October 17:
Warning: “heightened state of alert”
Source: Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC), which is housed at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) but has several partner organizations, including the RCMP.
(3) October 17:
Warning: “violent act of terrorism”
Source: Privy Council Office (PCO), which advises the Prime Minister.
(4) October 18:
Warning: ISIS considering attacks on uniformed law enforcement persons in Canada
Source: Criminal Intelligence Integrated Unit of the RCMP
(5) October 21:
Warning: [We do not know what is in this report, which the RCMP has refused to release, but it was apparently based on more than the lethal October 20 event in Quebec.]
Source: National Intelligence Coordination Centre, RCMP
(6) September to October, 2014, beginning about a month before the October 22 events
Warning: There was a war-gaming of “an attack in Quebec followed by an attack in another city” (CBC journalist Adrienne Arsenault called it the “precise scenario” that unfolded in October).
Source: Adrienne Arsenault, speaking on The National, CBC television, October 22, 2014. According to her the participants in the war game included CSIS, the RCMP, and the National Security Task Force.
We find, in short, that there were repeated warnings beginning at least a month before October 22 and growing more intense in the five days prior to the attacks. Such warnings are not at all normal in Canada. ITAC’s last similar warning had been issued about four years previously. As to the precision in timing of the warnings, Craig James, an official at the B.C. legislature, said that his office had been told “there may be a problem this week.” How extraordinary. There was, indeed, a problem “this week:” there was a lethal attack on the Monday (October 20) followed by a lethal attack on the Wednesday (October 22).
But the words of Craig James raise another issue: it is not merely the timing that is peculiar but also the institutions warned. With warnings going out to legislatures in Canada, how could the most important legislature at all have been left with no warning? As journalist Michael Smyth of The Province put it: “our provincial politicians [in B.C.] and legislative security staff were well-briefed by the feds here, but the RCMP in Ottawa got taken by surprise? What is wrong with this picture?”
What is more, consider the peculiarity in the October NBC warning. “Knife and gun” attacks inside Canada? Such attacks are very uncommon. Yet both on October 20 and October 22 large knives were found at the crime scene. Is this a coincidence?
Finally, we have the war-games exercise, which was found to be oddly prophetic when an attack in the province of Quebec (October 20) was followed by an attack in a second city (Ottawa, Ontario). It is true that part of the war-game scenario mentioned by Arsenault (a third incident with returnees from Syria) did not manifest itself, but there were certainly efforts, which involved RCMP lies, to tie both October suspects to Syria.
So, what are we to think of Mr. Paulson’s statement about “no advance warning?” Mr. Paulson was lying. Why? There are two main possibilities.
First, he may have been lying to disguise gross RCMP incompetence. To suggest this is to stay within the bounds of acceptable discourse, although even in this case there should be calls for Mr. Paulson’s resignation.
But how does the incompetence theory fit with the fact that the although the PCO document of October 17 explicitly called for maintaining patrols, the RCMP, after the issuing of the PCO document, actually halted a series of patrols they had been making in the vicinity of Parliament Hill? And why would the RCMP, after receiving a series of clear warnings, allow themselves to remain short-staffed on the scene to the tune of at least 29 officers? Moreover, since the PCO warning explicitly called for maintaining excellent communications, how is it that the RCMP neither received nor passed on, in a timely way, effective warnings that would have prevented the suspect’s assault on Centre Block?
The unspeakable possibility—the possibility that is outside the bounds of respectability and will not be mentioned by mainstream media and political representatives–is that Mr. Paulson denied receiving warnings of the attacks because the RCMP were complicit in the attacks.
It is not wise to pretend we know the truth about an incident when we do not. I do not pretend, in this talk or in my written report, to know with certainty whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was complicit in the October 22, 2014 attacks in Ottawa. But I do know that, given its history of complicity in establishing “terrorist” threats, as well as the serious anomalies and unanswered questions that stare us in the face when we investigate the October 22 events, the RCMP must be regarded as suspects.
Conclusions:
Let me end this talk by reiterating five points.
  1. There is a pattern, common enough in war and found in the War on Terror: Threat, followed by Unity, followed by Reaction, which has an internal and external dimension.
Whatever the value of this pattern to human survival at various times in our history, it can leave populations open to deception and manipulation.
  1. In the War on Terror deception and manipulation are exactly what we find. There is strong evidence that legislatures of the U.S. and Canada have been subjected to physical intimidation that has facilitated both the internal projects (repressive legislation) and the external projects (invasions and occupation) of the leaders of the War on Terror.
  1. A strong social taboo has been constructed that has hampered awareness of this deception and manipulation. The taboo extends through the population but is especially strong in legislatures, including the Parliament of Canada.
  1. This taboo ensures that our Canadian Parliament, like the U.S. Congress, is unfit to protect citizens from the deceptions and violence of the War on Terror and is even unable to protect itself.
  1. Of the four cases dealt with today, I regard complicity in the physical intimidation of legislatures by state agencies as established in three cases. In the fourth case, the events of October 22, 2014 in Canada, state-sponsored intimidation had not been established, but is a possibility that must be explored through investigation and research—formal and public if possible, but otherwise by members of civil society using all their intelligence and determination."
Note the vital importance in conspiracy analysis of considering the odd actions of the gatekeepers/protectors:
  1. in the face of specific warnings, the existence of which is now specifically and vehemently denied, the RCMP did nothing to beef up security at the most obvious target in the country;
  2. in fact, in a pattern that occurs far too often, the RCMP just happened to be remarkably understaffed, an understaffing that occurred just before that day!;
  3. the ubiquitous presence in these cases of 'drills' paralleling the actual attack, prompted no doubt by the denied warnings, from which nothing, it seems, is learned;
  4. the gatekeepers whose only job was to prevent this kind of thing from happening, obviously saw the perp, running towards Parliament with a rifle, but pursued him in the most desultory way imaginable, and gave no warning whatsoever to security inside the building
We've actually set up a situation where gross incompetence/malfeasance by the gatekeepers actually benefits them as an institution!
blog comments powered by Disqus