Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?

No, I have to say that interpretation hadn't occurred to me. However, after reading your post I gamed it out in my head on my drive home from work. It doesn't work for me for a number of reasons:

1) The perpetrator is all wrong. Circumstances have handed any pol wanting to drum up fear in the body politic the *perfect* foil--namely Muslims.

2) The actual deed is wrong. Yes, six people died but there could have been a much higher body count.

3) Giffords survived. If this were a conspiracy she would have died because from a propaganda perspective she is worth far more dead than alive.

What possible benefit would come out of this for a politician or 'the government'? None. If someone is going to take such a HUGE risk as a false-flag operation, there has to be a payoff. There's no payoff to this. Discussion of gun control ( which goes nowhere) and distraction? Not nearly enough.

If the shooter had been a suicide bomber and if said suicide bomber had conveniently been in Pakistan or along the AfPak border area and immediately following there were calls to invade Pakistan then I could see an argument for a false-flag operation. But given the above, I just don't see it. The risks of being caught so outweigh any potential benefits that there's no way someone would green light the kind of operation you are alluding to.

Cheers
Aj