Eyewitness: 4 Man Team Behind Sikh Temple Shooting

Can I just ask, do we know how many were in the temple at the time?
All I can find is this news article in the guardian site (sorry, its a mobile link, but doing this from my phone).
If you look down to 6pm, it says that the folk inside were probably attending early to prepair for a lunch.
On that basis, it does not sound like it was packed out at all.
All those saying, it cant be a 4 man hit, as more would have been killed...
Erm.. Not if only 7 or 8 ppl were in the temple at the time.
Does anyone know any figures for amount if people present at the time of shooting?

I was at work when this happened and was watching CNN in the break room while having my lunch shortly after it happened.

At that time they stated that witnesses were saying that it was multiple shooters, but the police were pretty sure there was only one. However, they were searching the building anyway, just in case.

Look people, most of us can agree that our leaders have fooled us and tricked us for many many years. It is our job now to see through all the official stories. I believe we should question everything. Everything.

Unless you all want to give up and let them control us, just like they want to.

Originally posted by muse7
Guess you can't be a terrorist if you're white huh?

Is the label terrorist only reserved for brown people with AK-47s?

These were terrorists, these terrorists attacked innocent women and children just like the 9/11 terrorists killed thousands of innocent people.

You're already blaming the "left" and "liberals" when the ones that are politicizing this horrible tragedy are the people that have the 2nd amendment tattoo'd on their ass

Actually when this happened, I believe many news outlets were calling this an act of domestic terrorism, so I'm not quite sure what you're babbling about.

One thing that is odd is why anyone would attack Sikh temple? It could be an act of mistaken identity by people who could only name anyone of brown skin as "an A-Rab" and I'm pretty sure America has its fair share of those uneducated hick types. However, something which is odd is that the chief suspect is a US soldier. Now, why would he have a problem with Sikhs? If he had a problem with Muslims, how did he mistake a Sikh temple for an Islamic temple?

Now I am the first to point out the massive flaws in multi culturalism, but I have never even considered Sikhs or indeed Hindus as anything other than hard working people who may be somewhat culturally different, but do actually in general respect and show honour and even patriotism towards the land where they live, at least that is how I see it here in the UK. If everyone who come here was like them, multi culturalism may actually have had a chance!

Americans should really pay tribute to these people and appreciate having them in the country, when the SHTF, these people are proud and strong and I certainly would rather have them as friend than foe.

So why would a US soldier of all people, attack a Sikh temple?

FYI...

"While in the Army Wade served as a sergeant, and later as a specialist based in Ft. Bliss in Texas and at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina. Wade's job was as a Hawk missile system repairman, and he then became a psychological operations specialist, defense official confirmed to ABC news."

The DHS is loving this, didn't they classify returning vets as potential terrorists, but nobody would listen? Doesn't matter if he was out of the army 14 years ago...

Originally posted by TechUnique


I really don't know and there's not enough evidence to hand to jump to conclusions just yet.

Prayers for all those involved in these horrible incidents..

Do you really need evidence, when all one has to do, is call attention to the obvious ?

I'll rephrase.

When something is so blatantly obvious there is no need for evidence.

Or

Let not evidence be an obstacle for the truth. For if it is a truth, that some may want to hide and others may not want to face up to ? Would it be absurd to assume the lack of supporting evidence is simply part of that truth ?

Fellow members and people of the USA !

Why isn't it obvious to all of you, as it is to me, that some very powerful, wicked people want us all dead ?
What ? You know you can't recognize anything, if you can't recognize that ? I'm not saying we can do anything about it. But there should be no doubt in this thread as to what's going on. Just because you can't kick a Gorillas ass doesn't mean you aren't in the room with one.

A 911 Tatoo.

Wade was in a punk/metal band called 'End Apathy' and is originally from Colorado. What are they feeding people in Colorado? GMO?

Now I am not going to say that this is not a possibility but if there really were 4 men attacking a group of unarmed and surprised worshipers wouldnt the body count have to have been a lot more than what it was?

reply to post by underduck


As I said in my post further up this page, it did not look like there were many at the temple.
From what I can tell, the only people there were getting ready for a lunch.
Death toll cannot be used to discredit the 4 gunmen reports.
I cannot find an accurate number of people in the temple at the time.
Thus could br a 100% hit rate for all we know.

Underduck -
(As noted many times already...)

Not if their targets were all destroyed.

They hit the church's leader.

reply to post by djyorkie


Fair enough ... I missed that one.

I will hold my judgement until we get some more evidence. Although it is easy to do I cant rely on eye witness testimony by itself. I am open to the possibility though.

This same kind of rumor was going on about the Colorado shooting as well where people who saw him get up out of his set and walk out assumed he was a second person..

I'm not saying there wasn't four shooters, there very well could be .. but so far I'm taking this with a grain of salt .. besides, I think if this really were a four man team then there would have been a lot more damage than there was..

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by TechUnique


I really don't know and there's not enough evidence to hand to jump to conclusions just yet.

Prayers for all those involved in these horrible incidents..

Do you really need evidence, when all one has to do, is call attention to the obvious ?

I'll rephrase.

When something is so blatantly obvious there is no need for evidence.

Or

Let not evidence be an obstacle for the truth. For if it is a truth, that some may want to hide and others may not want to face up to ? Would it be absurd to assume the lack of supporting evidence is simply part of that truth ?

I reject that argument.. I've been around on ATS especially long enough to know that what might be "obvious" to one person doesn't make it in any way true.. so evidence I think is always the best course.. People get so convinced about a topic that it's absolutely true in their mind.. when it may not be true in the world of facts... evidence is never an obstacle of truth, it's something used to arrive at truth.

reply to post by underduck


Pretty ugly situation, right? I've been getting the feeling there is a war under way that we can't see. These "things" whatever you wanna call em are popping up, the timing is odd, the reports change every minute, the "facts" as we are given can be dissected so many ways...

There's a psychology behind them... When we're talking Loughner or Holmes, or this psychiatric warrior... (Cho, I didn't forget you...) and these stories will be studied forever. The element of surprise and bravado seems to be the novelty here. So are we left to wonder what hasn't already been done?

Rather than lose our minds, I think we're being nudged towards giving up our constitutional rights and our leaders are just pathetic. . . so we are, in many respects being left to our own devices and nobody wants to hang out and be caught thinking in a way counter to the mainstream. How can we make sure it doesn't continue to get worse?

Originally posted by djyorkie
Can I just ask, do we know how many were in the temple at the time?
All I can find is this news article in the guardian site (sorry, its a mobile link, but doing this from my phone).
If you look down to 6pm, it says that the folk inside were probably attending early to prepair for a lunch.
On that basis, it does not sound like it was packed out at all.
All those saying, it cant be a 4 man hit, as more would have been killed...
Erm.. Not if only 7 or 8 ppl were in the temple at the time.
Does anyone know any figures for amount if people present at the time of shooting?

An article I read had said there were people in the temple praying and reading scripture as well as people preparing for a lunch that is open to the entire community .. I don't know any solid facts about totals.. but it sounds to me to be likely to be more than a few people on hand..

Originally posted by miniatus
. besides, I think if this really were a four man team then there would have been a lot more damage than there was..

So to state that, you know how many people were in the temple at the time of the shooting?
Could you please share the info?
As you will see from my first post here, I really want to find out how busy the temple was at the time this happened.
Without that detail, "amount of damage" cant be used to discredit 4 shooter reports. Gotta be left open till the facts come out.

reply to post by miniatus


Again- this is a silly conclusion! Why did there necessarily need to be more carnage? They killed the leader of that Church, man.

This was not haphazard.

This article puts the total at 30-35 people in the temple during the shooting ..definitely more than 7 or 8.. the the man heading the service, the president.. physically fought the gunmen

Survivors and relatives huddled in grief and confusion inside the bowling alley Sunday afternoon, trying to sort out facts as law enforcement officials interviewed them.

People begin gathering at the temple as early as 6:30 a.m. on Sundays, but most arrive around 10:30 or 11 for services, Mr. Singh said. He believed about 30 to 35 people were inside when the shooting began, but had the gunman arrived just 15 minutes later, Mr. Singh said, 100 to 150 people would have been inside. By 1:30 p.m., there would have been more than 300.

Source: www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by chetinglendalevillage
reply to post by miniatus

 

Again- this is a silly conclusion! Why did there necessarily need to be more carnage? They killed the leader of that Church, man.

This was not haphazard.

I'm just saying I've seen nothing to indicate four shooters.. from what I've seen in other stories, the president of the temple.. the leader.. came at the gunman to try to stop him.. he fought with him and took multiple shots in the scuffle. Of course it's a tragedy and it's honorable for him to have been defending the church members.. I just don't see it being four shooters.

reply to post by miniatus


Nothing? Have you seen this and completely disregard it as non fact? www.youtube.com... I'm just wondering.

When I see this video, I see some interesting detail that regardless of how scared you are, you aren't about to create out of your mind.

Nothing...? Are you sure? Because I know when I get back to work, that sounds a lot like the people I'll cross during my day who don't come and post on ATS. Which is fine for them, but somehow I don't buy that you have a reason to say there is no reason at all to be suspicious. It's a lot easier to swallow the official story we've been given -- but this attack was poignant for those involved.

reply to post by chetinglendalevillage


Ugly indeed. I too question these events becoming more and more common and I am concerned about our lack of leadership and an ignorant electorate. In many ways we are forced to fend for ourselves today.

The only thing we can do is be vigilant and try to recognize what they are doing. Once we have that ... pass it on. Get the word out and that is all we can really do.