posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:12 PM
originally posted by: Indigo5
As far as terrorism goes, the aim is for the target to be symbolic. 9-11 (US economic center) ..the heart of Paris etc.
Wrong. The point of terrorism is to push an agenda in a violent way. If a group of people start targeting locations that make no sense to attack, then
the general populace will start to feel fearful during their normal daily activities. Then as long as said group make a claim afterwards about it the
group can say it was successful. On the other hand, if the event started by the group does nothing more then to embolden their intended victims to
stand firm and not show fear. Then the group that started the event has failed.
Believing that a specific target of a terrorist attack has to have some kind of importance to the message of the group conducting the event is a
fallacy of modern "group-think". When in reality understanding the operational activities of said groups will give a better understanding as to what
kinds of targets could be selected. Sadly in this case a very soft target, with the possible handicapped victims, and a location with no
military/political/religious/ message can be picked from, was the target.
As for some of the other stuff being talked about here:
No, this doesn't sound like anyone used any kind of training other than video gaming. I'm not saying that they didn't have military training, but
rather this type of operation doesn't sound like they needed any.
Training in the area:
Look it happens so much that people cry false-flag as soon as a mass shooting training program is being conducted at the same time as a real shooting.
Why? Doesn't it make sense to use a publicly announced event as a training event, where a large group of reserve first responders and law enforcement
personnel are pre-occupied conducting training. Making any soft target even softer by removing the local authorities response time minimums.
The ever changing news reports:
Breaking news is always breaking. This means that as new and better information is available for release it does. Even if it means that previously
released information is no longer relevant to the event. Broadcast news is there to inform people about what is going on as it happens, not for
conducting an "as it happens" investigation. So being relevant to what is happening is more important then assessing the data. This is why major new
outlets employ retired officials that understand what they are seeing, and try to stay on top of the events in order to understand it.
So lets keep that in mind when we get frustrated because the current story is a little different then originally reported. As the public in general,
we can also analyze the information being reported. We can look at all the reports and formulate a "speculative narrative" (SN) for what's being
reported. Though we should provide facts to back up our SN if we choose to air it.
Anyways, lets hope this gets resolved in a safe and speedy manor.