It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What’s really going on? “Texas Attack What You Are Not Being Told!”

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on May, 8 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   


I don’t necessarily go for some of this guy’s simplistic rhetoric but this video has a lot of good points.


Indeed, this most recent attack of all of them to me reeks of false flag.

The lunatic Pam Geller, this phony Muhammad conference, and the FBI, and the mysterious killers of the killers…

And of course your usual useful idiot terrorists


Are we being played like a fiddle?

Or beaten like a drum?

Or both


edit on 8-5-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



+12 more 
posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Why is it when the FBI does something, it's suspicious and must be indicative of some nefarious plot? But if they DON'T do something, it is also suspicious and indicative of a nefarious plot? Is it just a matter of wanting to have the bases covered so no matter what, somebody is right? It seems that whatever action taken is wrong. And where there's inaction, it's also wrong. That continues to amaze me.

What's so mysterious about the cop that offed these two yahoos? I can't watch the video, so if it's something from there then you'll have to enlighten me. Is it just because he hasn't been named yet? If so, so what? Why does he need to be? If it's something else, what is it?



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Why is it when the FBI does something, it's suspicious and must be indicative of some nefarious plot? But if they DON'T do something, it is also suspicious and indicative of a nefarious plot?


If it wasn't like that, there wouldn't be nothing to speculate about or fear. Fear is entertainment. Entertainment is in demand.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Why is it when the FBI does something, it's suspicious and must be indicative of some nefarious plot? But if they DON'T do something, it is also suspicious and indicative of a nefarious plot? Is it just a matter of wanting to have the bases covered so no matter what, somebody is right? It seems that whatever action taken is wrong. And where there's inaction, it's also wrong. That continues to amaze me.



What's so mysterious about the cop that offed these two yahoos? I can't watch the video, so if it's something from there then you'll have to enlighten me. Is it just because he hasn't been named yet? If so, so what? Why does he need to be? If it's something else, what is it?



They are not releasing the hero traffic cop's name in order keep a target off his back. (And his family's.) My local news reported this. Makes sense to me.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: texasgirl

Pretty much my sentiment. If I was him, I would fight any personal information being released tooth and nail.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

The video makes perfect sense to me and what I've been saying. ISIS? LOL So much for all the money wasted on data collecting and national security when a group like this can "just pop up". Oh all while using American made weaponry and Japanese trucks



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: texasgirl

Pretty much my sentiment. If I was him, I would fight any personal information being released tooth and nail.
It's public information Brah < lol



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Is it? Turns out in Texas, a police department can't release an officer's picture unless they've been charged with a crime, named in a civil suit, or the officer consents to it. They also can't release personnel files or information without the state AG office signing off on it.

Brah. Lulz.
edit on 8-5-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bilk22

Is it? Turns out in Texas, a police department can't release an officer's picture unless they've been charged with a crime, named in a civil suit, or the officer consents to it. They also can't release personnel files or information without the state AG office signing off on it.

Brah. Lulz.
This is true even when said officer guns down an American citizen?



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I'm putting Pam Gellar right up there whith Nancy Pelosi...two annoying people...Who seriously didn't think something was not going to happen either buy alleged terrorists or some lunatics...I don't like people dumping on religion in general regardless how fantastic it may sound...it's just respect and free speech is one of those dodgy rights that can be expoited by attention seekers to be a douche under the guise of freedom and free speech...



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Why is it when the FBI does something, it's suspicious and must be indicative of some nefarious plot? But if they DON'T do something, it is also suspicious and indicative of a nefarious plot? Is it just a matter of wanting to have the bases covered so no matter what, somebody is right? It seems that whatever action taken is wrong. And where there's inaction, it's also wrong. That continues to amaze me.

What's so mysterious about the cop that offed these two yahoos? I can't watch the video, so if it's something from there then you'll have to enlighten me. Is it just because he hasn't been named yet? If so, so what? Why does he need to be? If it's something else, what is it?


The cops identity has been revealed.

above top secret



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Were the above parameters fulfilled? You can answer your own question brah. Lulz.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Well no wonder he's not worried about being named lol



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bilk22

Is it? Turns out in Texas, a police department can't release an officer's picture unless they've been charged with a crime, named in a civil suit, or the officer consents to it. They also can't release personnel files or information without the state AG office signing off on it.

Brah. Lulz.
This is true even when said officer guns down an American citizen?


I guess the citizen shouldnt have drawn down on the officer........thats a pretty quick way to get shot here in Texas, and not just by officers



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I watched a few minutes of the video same old tired claims and edited videos as proof.

The only proof that video supplies, is proof of the reason you shouldn't get your information from random idiots on YouTube.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bilk22

Is it? Turns out in Texas, a police department can't release an officer's picture unless they've been charged with a crime, named in a civil suit, or the officer consents to it. They also can't release personnel files or information without the state AG office signing off on it.

Brah. Lulz.
This is true even when said officer guns down an American citizen?


I guess the citizen shouldnt have drawn down on the officer........thats a pretty quick way to get shot here in Texas, and not just by officers
That's all fine and good, but the cop is a public servant and his identity should be known. If indeed the law allows for his name to be withheld, then we know why this idiotic event was STAGED in Texas.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Texas isn't the only state with laws like that.

But your last sentence makes your angle clear. Bruh. Lulz.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I thought it highly unlikely that a croup of artists would suddenly decide to show allegiance with Charlie Hebdo and risk this. The room it took place in looked staged and so plain.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bilk22

Is it? Turns out in Texas, a police department can't release an officer's picture unless they've been charged with a crime, named in a civil suit, or the officer consents to it. They also can't release personnel files or information without the state AG office signing off on it.

Brah. Lulz.
This is true even when said officer guns down an American citizen?


I guess the citizen shouldnt have drawn down on the officer........thats a pretty quick way to get shot here in Texas, and not just by officers
That's all fine and good, but the cop is a public servant and his identity should be known. If indeed the law allows for his name to be withheld, then we know why this idiotic event was STAGED in Texas.


Your ASSUMPTION is that its staged, that doesnt make it truth....

and why should his name be released and possibly put his family (who are innocent) in danger by more psychos who wish to retaliate......

Im pretty sure that you wouldnt want your information out where your family could be hurt either....

Common sense man



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Willtell

I thought it highly unlikely that a croup of artists would suddenly decide to show allegiance with Charlie Hebdo and risk this. The room it took place in looked staged and so plain.


it is plain, but weve known about this for a while here in Texas, it was what it was......

Now I dont agree with it, but neither do I think that it was staged......

It wasnt about "allegiance" to hebdo, it was defiance......




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join