RE: Christchurch - Multiple Players And Identifying the Cointel Narrative

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Christchurch - Multiple Players And Identifying the Cointel Narrative

View the full context

thoughts-in-time (64)in #christchurch • 6 years ago (edited)

I agree with you on parts and disagree on others.
Here is what I wrote about your initial analysis.
Also, I am curious, you say he was alerted?
What is that assertion based upon?

One other thing to consider is that you're
saying: 'think about what you say' cause
if you say the wrong thing they won't let
you talk. I'd suggest if you have to watch
what you say to retain freedom of speech
then you've already lost that freedom.

It shouldn't matter if crazy or off people say
dumb shit, that's par for the course in a free
society. If society penalizes people for saying
what they think or believe, then that society
is the infringing party. I'm not saying that gives
one the right to scream fire in a crowded theater
but people reserve the right to their opinions and
the NZ/Aussie government no longer respects peoples
opinions if you have to resort to self-censorship tactics
in order to retain the "freedom to say" what they allow.

6 years ago in #christchurch by thoughts-in-time (64)

Sort:

maxigan (69) 6 years ago

This may help clarify my position: http://www.thecrowhouse.com/max_igan_on_christchurch.html

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

thoughts-in-time (64) 6 years ago (edited)

"That man in red can again be clearly seen standing by the wall when Tarrant shot the final victim in the street."

It was after Tarrant shot the final victim from the position of the mosque doors, that I presume the man who was in her vacinity, panicked, and tried to find a place to hide, and ended up leaping over the fence. My guess is he had no clue where she was shot from. This is just a guess. I was looking at one of those frames and was able to see he hopped over the fence. That's for this picture.

I agree with you mostly on that website link. However, you lose me at where you think he is being directed. I don't know if I'm just not smart enough to pick up on it, or if you're wrong, or what's not clicking for me to see it how you are. One thing I know for certain, Gordon Duff and therefore veterans today, the site he is the chairman of is full of shit. He admittedly gives out false information for his "own safety."

Additionaly, I have a low opinion of James Fetzer, and that would be a long walk, and not even worth expanding upon TBH, but still, I'm not sold on the idea the shooter is being fed information, but what do I know? BTW, I should mention I appreciate you, and all of the work you provided, and continue to provide to those whom are simply looking for answers in this land of confusion.

$0.00