posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:28 AM
reply to post by stumason
Typical ATS, screaming conspiracy and BS without availing themselves of all the facts first... The regiment that the soldiers were in has just come
back from a tour of Afghan and has done several over the years. It is likely that the killer knows this and may well have had direct contact with them
over there. Also, they are local to him. That is why that regiment was targeted Honestly, the standard of critical thinking has gone downhill round
these parts, ironically while people think themselves "smarter" because they will call BS on pretty much anything. This is simply some Talib wannabe
having his crack at the French, on his home turf, against a regiment that has done time on Afghan and the stock Jewish targets all Islamists go for..
Simples.. No conspiracy, false flag or Aliens here.
So let me get this straight I make assumptions yet you use critical thinking, yet you are using statements like "It is likely" Your post is nothing
but full of presumptions just like anyone else's yet, yet you wish to undermine anyone else's opinions and belittle them.
Well try this for some critical thinking..
When has the Taliban ever trained people to be assassins and walk up close to others to shoot them face to face whilst filming with a camera around
their neck? When did the Taliban change tack from being suicide bombers? The Taliban and Alciada use explosives as there means of terror, funnily
enough western governments use assassins, just saying
How did the French police give out the details of the incident so quickly, I mean within a couple of hours they had determined that the person who
shot the children was in fact the same one who had killed the soldiers? They didn't even state it was just the same gun that was used, but were quite
clear it was the exact same killer. Within a couple of hours of the incident, don't you at least think for one minute that this was fast? Given that
the bodies would of needed to have had an autopsy, then the bullets taken for analysis, the reports given back up the chain of command, so a couple of
hours seems extremely fast to me for such information to be released.
They gave a report saying he tried to use a different gun, but that it jammed so he had to use the .45, if the first gun had jammed and not fired, how
did they know it was a .35 that he had first tried to use?
Nor have you answered the specific of my earlier point, why someone who is protesting at the killing of innocent children in Palestine would be
attacking someone in connection with Afghanistan? If he was there to object to Palestine his primary targets would be Jewish, not Muslims or potential
Muslims, you just make assumptions that these particular soldiers were at some point based in Afghanistan and that's why he killed them. Even though
he never mentioned anything against Western troops in Afghanistan.