posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 06:18 PM
BRAIN FART ALERT! (I don't know f anyone has ever discussed this idea here on this forum; I'd be surprised if nobody has, but I'll throw it
out for discussion. If it's old, chewed fodder, somebody knows how to dispose of it.)
An event in London that looks much like an acknowledged terrorist attack in NYC just about 24 hours earlier is not
terror related, we're
The Las Vegas shootings had nothing to do with terrorism, so they say.
How many other events that looked so much like terrorist attacks have been designated as not terror related? And many of us are scratching our heads
and wondering what's going on.
Might it be that some attacks that were intended as terror attacks by the perpetrators have been identified by authorities as being not related to
terror in an effort to squelch the effects of terrorism? Think about it for a moment...
The object of terrorism is what? To create terror, right?
So, if a terror attack is widely publicized as a terror attack, then the terrorists
score a win. Their primary goal is not
to actually kill people and destroy property. All of that is simply collateral damage, as it were. The
actual end goal is to instill terror, fear, confusion, doubt, frustration in the hearts of people and to thereby alter their state of mind and just
muck up society as much as possible.
So, for an event - especially a widely known and particularly psychologically devastating one - to be publicly identified by authorities as a terror
attack really helps the terrorists to achieve their goals of creating terror. Is it possible that some of these incidents that were in fact terror
attacks but where there exists even a veneer of plausible deniability for the authorities have been purposefully misidentified by the authorities as
not being terror related so as to steal the thunder from the terrorists, so to speak?
In a twisted way and in a twisted world, this would make sense.
What does ATS think?
edit on 2017 11 01 by incoserv because: clarity