I read with interest from numerous Canadian and U.S. sources that a "radicalized" individual (the quotes appear in all sources I viewed) carried out a vehicular attack in a parking lot yesterday, injuring 2 military personnel (1 in our uniformed gear) one of whom died.
The suspect entered into a high-speed chase with police, crashed his vehicle, exited and was shot multiple times and then died. Some of yesterday's reports (now "edited") indicated he exited with hands up. All of today's reports I viewed emphasize he approached officers with a knife. Initial reports can be misleading I suppose, or perhaps even later ones?
-It is not so much that our own Prime Minister's office declared this to be a domestic terror event yesterday, before the police spokesman was able to state anything to the public via press release about the now deceased suspect. Even an opposition leader commented on the strangeness of this.
-It is not so much that our parliament had been briefed in the summer by two intelligence agencies about domestic radicals and the threat they pose when immigrating or emigrating,
-It is not so much that new powers to track these domestic radicals are being debated in parliament right now, surely to appear in omnibus bills full of unrelated but important legislation which will be rubber-stamped, with no review or language to protect against unwarranted surveillance of us all.
-It is interesting that we have recently deployed soldiers, materiel and other war efforts against the latest shadowy terror group to emerge in former Babylon.
-It is interesting that in every instance of radicalization, police/intelligence "know" the suspects, "profile" them and are "aware of them", sometimes through the use of confidential informants or double agents.
-It is interesting that in every instance of radicalization, the suspects are often described as new and zealous converts to the muslim faith.
-It is very interesting that the most recent suspect had a Twitter (no tweets, apparently following "ISIS inspired individuals") and Facebook account, with self-photos presented in the media not in any way appearing to portray a conservative looking religious convert nor a zealot.
What can be done to break the level of cognitive dissonance the establishment would place in one's mind in order to perceive these official accounts as entirely factual, never contradictory and beyond suspicion in any manner of timing, content and execution of a particualr agenda?