Something does feel off about this, based on a video I've seen of him debating with Kirk earlier that day. I just can't quite figure out what it is that seems off.
Like obviously he was an opinionated leftist. But something about his demeanor doesn't quite line up. He didn't seem angry enough, cold and calculating, or sufficiently unhinged? And he didn't seem especially dumb enough to think he'd get away with it either.
Possibly arrogant or cocky enough to think that he was hoping he was "starting" something big though.
Because this assassination was done in a way to maximize public effect and not just to simply kill Charlie. It was essentially terrorism. Terrorists take credit for their actions. Be it personally or through the terrorist organization that they're a part of. He doesn't take credit and he didn't kill himself. If he actually was a lone wolf there's no way he ever thought he could get away with it. So why deny it?
And then there's the fact that the US government has been infiltrated by hostile actors for a very long time now and that fact has always been especially obvious concerning the FBI. So there is absolutely no reason to trust anything the government is saying if they don't release the evidence.
Remember the 2017 Las Vegas shooting? 8 years after the fact and still no motive. Just some random guy deciding to massacre 60 people during a country festival for no reason. And he did it all alone.
My personal theory for the 2017 shooting is that it was a entrapment deal attempted by the Feds that went wildly out of control.
So instead of 'We foiled a mass shooting, here's good political meat for our side to ban guns' they instead got an actual mass-shooting that they themselves caused.
Hence why they tried to bury it so quick.
Then again, given how fucky-whucky everything surrounding the Vegas shooting, I could very well be wrong.
The only thing that is for certain is that Paddock was just a patsy. I'd sooner believe the moon is made of cheese than Paddock being responsible for the massacre.
Something does feel off about this, based on a video I've seen of him debating with Kirk earlier that day. I just can't quite figure out what it is that seems off.
Like obviously he was an opinionated leftist. But something about his demeanor doesn't quite line up. He didn't seem angry enough, cold and calculating, or sufficiently unhinged? And he didn't seem especially dumb enough to think he'd get away with it either.
Possibly arrogant or cocky enough to think that he was hoping he was "starting" something big though.
Because this assassination was done in a way to maximize public effect and not just to simply kill Charlie. It was essentially terrorism. Terrorists take credit for their actions. Be it personally or through the terrorist organization that they're a part of. He doesn't take credit and he didn't kill himself. If he actually was a lone wolf there's no way he ever thought he could get away with it. So why deny it?
And then there's the fact that the US government has been infiltrated by hostile actors for a very long time now and that fact has always been especially obvious concerning the FBI. So there is absolutely no reason to trust anything the government is saying if they don't release the evidence.
Remember the 2017 Las Vegas shooting? 8 years after the fact and still no motive. Just some random guy deciding to massacre 60 people during a country festival for no reason. And he did it all alone.
My personal theory for the 2017 shooting is that it was a entrapment deal attempted by the Feds that went wildly out of control.
So instead of 'We foiled a mass shooting, here's good political meat for our side to ban guns' they instead got an actual mass-shooting that they themselves caused.
Hence why they tried to bury it so quick.
Then again, given how fucky-whucky everything surrounding the Vegas shooting, I could very well be wrong.
The only thing that is for certain is that Paddock was just a patsy. I'd sooner believe the moon is made of cheese than Paddock being responsible for the massacre.