Hi Michael Shelton,
Just call me Doug. I'll let you know when I get the call from Her Royal Highness the Queen and submit myself to the sword by sitting on my knees and offering my neck for the monarch's whim...:-).
One should never believe headlines, particularly from the media, as they are telescoped information of the truth, highly selective and often lies. The same process applies to a synopsis. The reason I give a synopsis, is to draw the attention of our colleagues to read the stuff, so that they can make up their own minds. An example is a highly selective header about the FBI withholding information because of a case they may have against Wikilleaks. Having a reason to keep information classified is always a good idea and if it is topical and looks good and presents the authorities in a good light...well, what more can one ask...;-) . One should always read the stuff for oneself, instead of relying on other peoples viewpoints. In that way, one makes up ones' own mind and one cannot blame anyone else if one gets it wrong. That is not to say of course, that affadavits, or evidence is court, just because it is sworn testimony is necessarily the truth...it just tends to be closer to the truth, and tends to have a higher value, particularly when it is put to the test.
In the second half of the affadavit, the FBI officer says some interesting stuff in his sworn affadavit. He explains how, as a secondary plot, the law enforcement agencies were targetted by the placing of a remotely controlled pipe bomb in the house of Farook, the firing mechanism of which was composed of modified fairy lights, some black explosive powder, a radio controlled device and a mobile telephone found in the car belonging to Farook. You may have noticed the care which was taken in entering the house of the conspirators from television or other media filming on the event.
In the reading of the affadavit you will also notice a curious circumstance in that it is explained by FBI experts how the pipe bomb is made, what it is made of, the trigger mechanism, the damage it could do, the different kinds of explosive powder, and just in case one doesn't understand, a reference to the Muslim terrorists equivelant of the Anarchists Cook Book, called "Aspire" a publication available on the internet. Now, this sort of information is usually not available publicly, and the authorities go to great lengths to try and prevent such information appearing on the internet and world wide web and people have been accused and charged and found guilty of having such information in their possession. Here, in the name of justice and democracy we have the information revealed as part of a court case...c'est la vie... All those curious innocents prosecuted in the past, or had their names put on government lists as terrorist suspects. It is just another example of the contradictory nature of the western justice and political system.
It just goes to show how contradictory public cesnsorship is, by the authorities. How information, which is public on the one hand, to selective audiences, is classified to others. It is OK for them to reveal and to leak potentiallly damaging information, on one platform but to classify it in another; but if anyone else does it, they are open to prosecution.
With kind regards,
On 20/12/2015 04:36, Michael Shelton wrote:
A very interesting and astute
analysis of a horrifying incident.
Looking at the time line of events as you lay it out,tells a much different story than the
Mainstream media does.
Being better informed is
essential to people understanding events like this.
Censorship can be carried out just by omitting part of the
Story, with all the TLAs doing
their jobs (questionable in even
the best circumstances, in a case like this a cover-up is par
for the course.)it would seem
Like more answers would fit
the case,but when those answers are tailored to protect
negligence or intelligence sources,there really isn't much
left to go on.
I was honestly surprised that the 3rd conspirator was found
and charged,but usually it would be years after determination of the "facts".
I am reminded of the classic
Quote from " Dragnet";
"Just the facts,ma'am."
On 19 Dec 2015 08:54, "doug" <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For court papers./affadavit; see url:
it is interesting to note that at the beginning of the affadavit,
the date of the start of the investigation into Marquez by Joel T.
Anderson, special agent of the FBI goes back at least before July
17th 2015! The charges of conspiracy against Marques and which
would have included Farook, had he been caught alive, go back to
2009 and 2011. The alleged planning for a terrorist attack of
some kind goes back to 2011, though it appears that Farook left
ouut Marquez, leaving him to take some of the blame. Guns were
purchased in the name of Marquez and handed over to Farook, the
assassin. The reason for choosing the site of the attack was not
because it was of some relevance to the politics or religion of
Islam or the people present at the site, but because it was a
place Farook knew well and was therefore convenient and easy for
him to carry out a massacre of the greatest numbers. The victims
weren't discriminated against because of their age, sex, ethnic
origins, jobs or occupations or political inclinations. In other
words, the two terrorists had absolutely no compassion or concern
for whom they killed or injured or terrorised. The woman
terrorist took her baby to a baby-sitter, just before the attack.
One has to contrast this of course with the non-judicial
executions carried out by state actors via drones and armed
expeditions on foreign citizens in alien countries. Far more
innocent victims have been killed by US, Uk and other Western
governments in the name of killing terrorists over the years. This is not to excuse or somehow justifiy Farook and his wife's
action against the people of San Bernadino. It just shows, in my
view, where violence leads to in the end, whether the perpetrators
are state actors acting illegally or terrorists. Both kinds of
action are self-defeating and lead to revenge and retribution of
some kind. Democracy, Christianity and freedom are supposed to be
the highest and most supreme form of government, with the U.S. and
the U.K. leading the liberation of the peoples of the world,
saving them from Islaamic or any other extremism, which is opposed
to western values; by showing them by example how the
international and national affairs of the world should be conducted.