12 dead in Fort Hood shooting spree

[chump]

I"m 90% sure that this is a planned Psyop event in the tradition of Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.

I wasn't watching television yesterday, but I was listening on the radio this morning about how the shooting unfolded on all the news channels yesterday.

A few weeks ago, I just happened to be over at a friends house on the day balloon boy supposedly took off however. The TV was on. I live in the Denver area so the story was interupting all the locals channels before it took off nationwide. I can imagine a whole lot of people were glued to that drama as it unfolded - just I was; especially since I know the area well. I have to admit I was drawn into the drama, practically biting my nails as all the news channels braodcast a live shot of that crazy balloon, straining my eyes for signs of a 6 year old child squirming within. There were a few of us in the room We dropped everything and found ourselves discussing, trying to figure out how that poor little kid might be safely rescued. After a while the authorities managed to bring that balloon down, and Oh God, the lad wasn't in there. He must have fallen out, we all thought, all of us wondering, fretting, getting sucked into the drama. And then the story took a light hearted turn as we discovered that the whole ordeal was a prank. Why?

Then, yesterday a more sinister event apparently unwound in front of TV viewers. Millions, probably world wide, were and continue be sucked into that drama. As I've said before, In addition to the general spreading of fear and bemuzement and malaise, we are being bombarded by intense, sophisticated multi-media campaigns designed to evoke a visceral reaction/non-reaction from and toward specific groups of people who almost can't help but to be exposed to the message.

I'm beginning to understand, thanks to many researchers, including those on RI, that media bombards us with these heart-rending, trauma inducing stories that suck everyone into this sort of shocked state so their behavior can be manipulated in a certain way. When people are essentially distracted by their emotional involvement with these horrific events that occur on an daily basis accross the world, apparently they will believe almost anything; especially if it is repeated often enough and shown in a variety of different ways.

Beyond that, I am almost sure that, whether it is perpetrated by the MIL or not (and this one stinks), each event can be stretched and pulled to achieve a desired effect so that certain people will likely react a certain way to further an ongoing agenda.

So, what is the message? There seems to be plenty of speculation about that here already.

But as I spend my time dwelling on these subjects on this blog, or other blogs, or on TV or the radio, after I have realized the effect they are trying to achieve, am I allowing myself to fall into their sticky mindset anyway?

[freemason9]

I"m 90% sure that this is a planned Psyop event in the tradition of Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.

I wasn't watching television yesterday, but I was listening on the radio this morning about how the shooting unfolded on all the news channels yesterday.

A few weeks ago, I just happened to be over at a friends house on the day balloon boy supposedly took off however. The TV was on. I live in the Denver area so the story was interupting all the locals channels before it took off nationwide. I can imagine a whole lot of people were glued to that drama as it unfolded - just I was; especially since I know the area well. I have to admit I was drawn into the drama, practically biting my nails as all the news channels braodcast a live shot of that crazy balloon, straining my eyes for signs of a 6 year old child squirming within. There were a few of us in the room We dropped everything and found ourselves discussing, trying to figure out how that poor little kid might be safely rescued. After a while the authorities managed to bring that balloon down, and Oh God, the lad wasn't in there. He must have fallen out, we all thought, all of us wondering, fretting, getting sucked into the drama. And then the story took a light hearted turn as we discovered that the whole ordeal was a prank. Why?

Then, yesterday a more sinister event apparently unwound in front of TV viewers. Millions, probably world wide, were and continue be sucked into that drama. As I've said before, In addition to the general spreading of fear and bemuzement and malaise, we are being bombarded by intense, sophisticated multi-media campaigns designed to evoke a visceral reaction/non-reaction from and toward specific groups of people who almost can't help but to be exposed to the message.

I'm beginning to understand, thanks to many researchers, including those on RI, that media bombards us with these heart-rending, trauma inducing stories that suck everyone into this sort of shocked state so their behavior can be manipulated in a certain way. When people are essentially distracted by their emotional involvement with these horrific events that occur on an daily basis accross the world, apparently they will believe almost anything; especially if it is repeated often enough and shown in a variety of different ways.

Beyond that, I am almost sure that, whether it is perpetrated by the MIL or not (and this one stinks), each event can be stretched and pulled to achieve a desired effect so that certain people will likely react a certain way to further an ongoing agenda.

So, what is the message? There seems to be plenty of speculation about that here already.

But as I spend my time dwelling on these subjects on this blog, or other blogs, or on TV or the radio, after I have realized the effect they are trying to achieve, am I allowing myself to fall into their sticky mindset anyway?

There is no message. Sometimes shit happens, as it always has.

I believe the prospect of an unplanned and chaotic world is more unsettling for some than the idea that we are all the unwilling victims of a vast global conspiracy.

[freemason9]

I look around other forums and can't believe how many people are falling for this, hook, line and sinker, that its "another terrorist attack". And I don't have the wherewithall to even attempt to confront that opinion, its so rampant.

If you define "terrorism" broadly enough, though, it may qualify.

[JackRiddler]

Assuming as the Army-sourced (and therefore subject to automatic skepticism) reports are for now shaping up that Hasan is

- not a patsy, whether planned or accidental;
- the only (first) shooter, i.e., any other shooters were reacting in defense and the casualties they caused were genuine friendly-fire;
- not an MK subject;
- not the victim of a psychosis involving full-blown hallucinations;
- was not recruited into performing this act by any organization or group;

and, finally, did it in reaction to his deployment to a war he opposed, after years of harrassment and attempting to gain release from the military,

then

this may be closer to "fragging" or mutiny than it is to a rampage killing.

Or rather, rampage killing would in that case be the means of mutiny.

The details of how this began and who was targeted first might suggest whether he "snapped" under pressure and presumably sufficient prior obsessive contemplation of revenge on life, as other rampage killers have, or chose to commit a one-man military mutiny. The comparison to a suicide attack in war might indeed be more relevant than to Columbine or other rampage killings. I am attempting to avoid normative terms, though I think it would be a morally wrong choice and not one likely to help stop the war.

I hesitate to post this at all for fear of a) contributing to confusion b) speaking from my own leanings or b) being drawn into another remote research sink with no hope of a definitive answer.

[JackRiddler]

.

I'm going to cross-post this because it's likelier to be read and responded to here:

I've been looking for statistics on the incidence of rampage killings. Meaning those that go down as homicides by individuals, and not as acts of war or political terror.

Also that distinguish among random-seeming mass public shootings, workplace and school attacks, as opposed to massacres of one's own relatives (or massacres in the commission of a robbery or other crime). I know the lines are not easy to draw.

The closest I've found so far (document does not allow cut and paste) is on p. 14 at the following link, stating that in the United States there were 21 "mass public shootings" from 1960 to 1965, which is around when the category first came into common usage, and 95 from 1966 to 1999. I'd like to see a decade-by-decade breakdown. In fact, these are few enough that one can imagine there's a full listing somewhere.*

Link


* in a study not compiled by David MacGowan

[Percival]

Shooting spree in ORLANDO taking place now. Here we gooooo..

[chump]

I haven't got much more time for this, but I wanted to ask why the 10th page of this topic ran off the end of the page after my post. Did I cause that to happen? If so, how do I avoid doing that in the future?

I also found this on Alex Constantine. I know it is by Sorcha Faal, but nevertheless:

Friday, November 6, 2009
Fort Hood Massacre - Mind Control?
By: Sorcha Faal
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1296.htm

[23]

Senseless violence whets the appetite for control.


If you want to control someone, the easiest way to accomplish that is by getting them to want you to implement control.


Senseless violence meets that bill nicely.


There isn't a more effective manifestation of authoritarian control... than a control which is invited and/or accepted... to offset the feeling of controlessness (literary license here) that senseless violence tends to engender.


We're being primed to desire or accept more authoritarian control.

[barracuda]

I haven't got much more time for this, but I wanted to ask why the 10th page of this topic ran off the end of the page after my post. Did I cause that to happen?

No, the url in Mr. Riddler's post above caused the thread spread.

[ninakat]

As for the timing, well, I can't think of a single moment in the past year (at least) when the timing would not have felt as though it were blatantly connected to what was happening in ye ol military industrial complex. Seriously, name a date and look back at what was happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or try to imagine the speculation that would have resulted from the Right claiming this event was a wag-the-dog related to something going on domestically.

I don't agree. The Afghan decision from Obama and the "tension" between McChrystal and Obama over whether to send more troops or not is heightened right now. 60 Minutes had McChrystal on not long ago making a very "convincing" argument for the masses about escalation, despite the Af-pak war becoming more unpopular. I think this period in time is quite different from any other since Obama has been in office. This event is exactly what they needed. If the Af-pak war doesn't escalate after this, I would be extremely surprised. It likely would have anyway, but this way, the public will be more agreeable. And isn't the management of public perception one of their top priorities? (And yes, at any cost.)

[ninakat]

I'm trying hard not to fall into knee-jerk conspiracy mode here, but it isn't easy.

I don't have any problem starting right out with knee-jerk conspiracy mode. In my view of the world, everything should start out there, despite the "rule" we've been taught about "innocent until proven guilty" or, as freemason9 asserts: "sometimes shit happens." To which I will only concede that accidents happen, but when shit happens, we need to be a hell of a lot more suspicious, especially when there's military involvement.

It amazes me that, on this board of all places, some people are afraid of speculating on the possibility of a conspiracy -- as if there's something shameful about that mindset as a starting point. Shame really.

[JackRiddler]

I haven't got much more time for this, but I wanted to ask why the 10th page of this topic ran off the end of the page after my post. Did I cause that to happen?

No, the url in Mr. Riddler's post above caused the thread spread.

Awright, awright, awready, jeezus.

The Afghan decision from Obama and the "tension" between McChrystal and Obama over whether to send more troops or not is heightened right now. 60 Minutes had McChrystal on not long ago making a very "convincing" argument for the masses about escalation, despite the Af-pak war becoming more unpopular. I think this period in time is quite different from any other since Obama has been in office. This event is exactly what they needed. If the Af-pak war doesn't escalate after this, I would be extremely surprised. It likely would have anyway, but this way, the public will be more agreeable. And isn't the management of public perception one of their top priorities? (And yes, at any cost.)

The part I don't see here is how the public is made more agreeable by this. No one will want to say it out loud, but this may have the opposite effect. On the public, at least. Can't speak for the propagandists, or the RW.

If it's as the official reports are shaping up, the timing would not be a coincidence any more than if it's a psyop. As you say, escalation is in the air and he just got his deployment notice despite trying to get the fuck out. So from that perspective it's just the right time for him to make his statement, if that is what it is.

At any rate, whoever above said that "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply is basically right. That's the court trial standard for individuals, and has nothing to do with our speculations here. Prosecutors build cases on the opposite principle: "assume guilty and prove it." Information is coming from the government institution most likely and most able to lie about anything and everything, with the longest track record.

[Percival]

As for the timing, well, I can't think of a single moment in the past year (at least) when the timing would not have felt as though it were blatantly connected to what was happening in ye ol military industrial complex. Seriously, name a date and look back at what was happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. Or try to imagine the speculation that would have resulted from the Right claiming this event was a wag-the-dog related to something going on domestically.

I don't agree. The Afghan decision from Obama and the "tension" between McChrystal and Obama over whether to send more troops or not is heightened right now. 60 Minutes had McChrystal on not long ago making a very "convincing" argument for the masses about escalation, despite the Af-pak war becoming more unpopular. I think this period in time is quite different from any other since Obama has been in office. This event is exactly what they needed. If the Af-pak war doesn't escalate after this, I would be extremely surprised. It likely would have anyway, but this way, the public will be more agreeable. And isn't the management of public perception one of their top priorities? (And yes, at any cost.)

Yes you have a national dialogue as I mentioned before that was :

Fucking Obama is about to deploy more troops

TO

Our poor, fallen and underappreciated military heros are about to be sent to Afghanistan and this is the thanks we give them.

Now instead of being pissy when the deployments start everyone will be cheering them on and waving their flags.

[Luposapien]

It amazes me that, on this board of all places, some people are afraid of speculating on the possibility of a conspiracy -- as if there's something shameful about that mindset as a starting point. Shame really.

Oh, I'm more than willing to speculate exactly that, and no shame about it. There's enough fishiness about this already to get me holding my nose. But, I'm also willing to entertain the idea that it actually was just one poor soul pushed over the edge (at least for now).

Of course, Regardless of whether or not the event itself was a staged psyop, I think it's a pretty damn safe bet that the media response to it will be. [And, on edit, the Military's spinning of the tale, equally of course.]

[Sounder]

I think this is more like chaos being taken advantage of, instead of being a preplanned psy-op. Maybe with the original script being something like the following comment to this article;

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s123 ... qus_thread

"In Washington, a senior U.S. official said authorities at Fort Hood initially thought one of the victims who had been shot and killed was the shooter. The mistake resulted in a delay of several hours in identifying Hasan as the alleged assailant."

The truth is probably something VERY different. For example:
'Two US privates John Smith and John Henry had been seeing a military psychiatrist major Hasan at Fort hood for a few weeks. Both privates said they were completely against the war of oppression in the middle east and would refuse to report for active duty if ordered to do so.
So the army put them both in therapy with Dr. Hasan. After more than five weeks of therapy both Christian privates were called to go to Afghanistan. Both privates warned they would not go and they would defend themselves with force if the army tried to force them to fight in a war they believed was morally wrong.
Yesterday fellow soldiers tried to surprize the two consciencious objectors but the privates were prepared and killed 12 soldiers who tried to force their way into the privates' barracks at Fort Hood.
During the mele their psychiatrist major Hasan, tried to talk the two privates into surrendering but he was shot twice.
Finally both privates were overcome and killed. Their psychiatrist major Hasan is in hospital recovering.'

Officials of the military have spun the story to make it seem the privates' doctor (who has a muslim sounding name) was the perpetraitor so that the public does not understand just how much resistance there is to the middle east war in the military rank and file.

The whole official Fort Hood cover story is 98% a lie - just like 9/11. Do you trust the main stream media for the truth in a story like this? Heck, for any story?

I do not.

Support the troops. End the war in the middle east and bring the troops home.

Now