It's obvious that everything they spew is false, but it can be interesting to psychoanalyze these fools once in a while:
Has this "Ciara O'Rourke" (fake name btw) ever said the words, "Yes, this was a false flag" during her career? I'm guessing not. Why not? Because she doesn't believe false flags exist, or rather, she wants you to believe they don't. Woopsie - so much for unbiased journalism.
Anyway, you can rip their credibility apart from a million different angles, this is just one angle I hadn't seen expressed before.
We need a less "absolute" term than FF. Saying it'd a false flag implies we KNOW it was and thus these jackasses can say it wasn't with just as much truth. Why? Because we don't know for a Fact IT WAS. FF by their nature are tricky if not impossible to falsify.
We need a softer but just as potent term.
Perhaps "Cabal Markers".. The Uvalde Shooting has 5 typical Cabal Markers and thus the official narrative is suspect.
Maybe an even slicker term can be thought up.
We need to beat them at their own game here. Besides, many have come to think False Flag means outright hoax. As some allege no one died at Sandy Hook. Did they? Probably, maybe not? Not the point, but that's different than a FF. 911 is a false flag because we know thousands died and we almost certainly blamed the wrong people for it.
Politifact's crack team of investigators has already rooted through every communication, every minute of the timeline, every event leading to the shooting, and determined no one was behind it except the shooter.
does ciara o'rourke have the inside scoop? does she have multiple contacts in the fbi and the cia that assure her it is not a false flag? you know, like those 51 "intelligence" professionals that assured us that hunters laptop was russian disinfo?
Isn't one of the primary purposes of a "false flag" operation to convince the media that the entity intended to be perceived as the perpetrator is the actual perpetrator?
This means there's a considerable amount of people who realize that it was a FF.
Their pants are totally on fire! Hurry! debunk, fact check! The sheep are connecting too many dots!
It's obvious that everything they spew is false, but it can be interesting to psychoanalyze these fools once in a while:
Has this "Ciara O'Rourke" (fake name btw) ever said the words, "Yes, this was a false flag" during her career? I'm guessing not. Why not? Because she doesn't believe false flags exist, or rather, she wants you to believe they don't. Woopsie - so much for unbiased journalism.
Anyway, you can rip their credibility apart from a million different angles, this is just one angle I hadn't seen expressed before.
Fake name just like Robbie’s fake beta name.
Is she related to beto because she is just as stupid as him for sure.
She is correct, it was not a false flag. It was a fake flag.
We need a less "absolute" term than FF. Saying it'd a false flag implies we KNOW it was and thus these jackasses can say it wasn't with just as much truth. Why? Because we don't know for a Fact IT WAS. FF by their nature are tricky if not impossible to falsify.
We need a softer but just as potent term.
Perhaps "Cabal Markers".. The Uvalde Shooting has 5 typical Cabal Markers and thus the official narrative is suspect.
Maybe an even slicker term can be thought up.
We need to beat them at their own game here. Besides, many have come to think False Flag means outright hoax. As some allege no one died at Sandy Hook. Did they? Probably, maybe not? Not the point, but that's different than a FF. 911 is a false flag because we know thousands died and we almost certainly blamed the wrong people for it.
It was a "Q" event. Q = Questionable.
Politifact's crack team of investigators has already rooted through every communication, every minute of the timeline, every event leading to the shooting, and determined no one was behind it except the shooter.
Real fucking impressive in under a week...
Wish they would do audits, then again the results would be the same so never mind.
oh, okay then
First they ignore it. Then they deny it. [You are here.] Then they argue it. Then they minimize it. Then they lose.
does ciara o'rourke have the inside scoop? does she have multiple contacts in the fbi and the cia that assure her it is not a false flag? you know, like those 51 "intelligence" professionals that assured us that hunters laptop was russian disinfo?
They use as their sources for this declaration, nothing but MSM publications.
Isn't one of the primary purposes of a "false flag" operation to convince the media that the entity intended to be perceived as the perpetrator is the actual perpetrator?
So, who died and made Ciara O'Rourke the arbiter of truth?