Crouching on a rooftop and firing military style? False Flag by a Fed confirmed?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
The argument that “firing while crouching confirms this is a fed” seems to suggest that the only competent shooters in the United States work for the federal government.
That would make the 2nd Amendment little more than a superficial courtesy. “Don’t worry, let them have the guns. No civilian has anywhere near the training or competency of a federal employee. They don’t even crouch while shooting a rifle.”
I’m not saying it’s impossible it’s a fed, but I wouldn’t say it’s “confirmed” based on the fact that this American knows how to shoot properly.
I simplified my argument to make a headline, so I’ll expand what my perspective on this here.
A « shooter on the roof » has been reported in multiple mass shootings in American history by witnesses, only to be brushed aside as conspiracy by federal investigative agencies.
Columbine reportedly had shooters on the roof. Shooters in the roof were reported for the Vegas massacre and Uvalde as well.
I merely meant there’s a very distinct pattern to these events, and that pattern needs to be examined. I lived through an hours long SWAT shootout with an ex-military member who snapped; despite shooting at people through his windows, for hours, nobody was injured or killed, and he didn’t magically descend his stairs into the ether.
We also should consider the fact Antifa was actively attempting to plan #FucktheFourth violence this weekend on discord and other channels.
As a personal aside, I have neighbors who specialized in base defense for the Army. They’ve previously told me tactical things such as shooting people from a roof are rarely accomplished by normal citizens, especially if they’re somehow able to flee down from a roof without getting caught by someone.
Upvoted.
This makes so much sense.
I can definitely agree with the take that information about these situations is often unreliable while in-progress.
I can think of innocuous reasons why this keeps happening, though. In the panic of a shooting, and with limited information, I can’t really blame officials for putting out anything that might conceivably help people on the ground avoid getting shot.
Maybe shooters being on the roof is over-reported. But if there is any evidence it could be true, warning people to get indoors and out of the open isn’t unwise advice.
In general, I expect officials to err on the side of caution until the shooting actually stops and there is a reasonable belief it won’t be restarted.
So in other words, even though I agree we should be skeptical of any details for a while, I am also think there are reasonable excuses for assuming the worst about lethal situations and making these kinds of mistakes, when they do happen.
I don’t think it necessarily requires malice for this potential error to occur, even if I accept the possibility of malice. So the only word I’m really questioning here, in light of your explanation, is the word “confirms.”
I’d wait a bit before using that word, is all.
Ah, I understand what you mean. I had hoped my use of question marks would’ve made it clear enough that I was asking more than asserting confirmation.
No problem. Your follow-up made your point clearer.