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.

 

Orlando 911 calls will be edited to remove references to "Islamic terrorism".

page: 21
89
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Jonjonj


Sure, if it's more than just protecting some details before they were ready to share. But what have we learned that we didn't know. We already knew the guy pledged support for ISIS. So.... what is the big reveal here that changes things?



I thought you didn't want ISIS to have support? Make your mind up, flip flopper.

Now it's out you are backpeddling.




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: spiritualzombie

WHAT???

All day long you have been espousing the propaganda value of the claims made by this terrorist inspiring others, hence the absolute need to conceal the information.

Now you're saying it was all much ado about nothing, and everyone was all excited over something "we already knew anyway" so no biggie????

Man, that was a change-up!

Is that in the "defuse" section of the manual, right after "deflect", but right before the "shiny object" section?



^^ oh man exactly.. Perfectly put too.

Now back to my shiny marble.. Oo



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parafitt
I thought you didn't want ISIS to have support? Make your mind up, flip flopper.


No back pedaling. I found nothing shady with the decision to hold back the propaganda, and I still don't. The FBI said what they omitted and why. At the end of the day absolutely nothing was revealed that we didn't already know. The guy pledged his allegiance to Islamic State. Just like they said.

But, thanks to Republicans, the shooter ultimately got his full message out. So congrats on that victory.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie



But, thanks to Republicans, the shooter ultimately got his full message out. So congrats on that victory.


BOOP, THERE IT IS!! The "shiny object"!!!

Right out of the handbook...the party 'operative' handbook, huh?

"Republicans". The "shooter", (as in "gun"), but not the "Islamic Terrorist Shooter", right? Word dropping, placement, casting doubt...you're one of the more polished and experienced ones, aren't you?

Question for you...why is it that you seem to get very active with your postings in the late 2nd quarter, 3rd and 4th quarters of every election cycle (i.e. every two years)? And then after the 1st of the year your posts vanish for 4-5 months? Why are the majority of your posts framed as questions? (on political threads relating to candidates which you clearly aren't aligned with). That's a very clever way around the T&C's...isn't it?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I can answer those questions... If you care to venture down that rabbit hole.

As you've noticed, I work every 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarter of the election cycle, except on my birthday. There are many of us; 'Operatives' if you will. We trade off to keep our profiles low. What you call the "shiny objects" is actually referred to as "the rub". It's the part where we subliminally implant an idea based on our own agenda. And yes, as you've noticed, I avoid saying Terrorist, because of the security implications, and I don't say Islamic mostly because I don't want to hurt their feelings. My Code Name is "Alpha.Snowflake.1". Pleased to me you.

Here's the rub... None of this is true.

----- 178517871790@alpha.snowflake.1 ----- [END TRANSMISSION] ----- FWD: HC




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
The "shooter", (as in "gun"), but not the "Islamic Terrorist Shooter", right?


Sorry, it's hard to take this seriously. If you want to know my stance on guns, I've always been a supporter of the second amendment.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
About the OP...big freakin surprise. On another note...remember how the White House stated that the DOJ made the decision entirely on their own with no WH intervention? Well...if that is so, why won't Lynch say who told them to edit the transcript? If it had been her, she could have said so with no additional ridicule. But if it was the Obama administration...she would have to shut-up right?

NewsMax

Well...she chose to shut-up.


(post by mengmeimei removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join