The Church of Mateen Dunnit: A Challenge to the Faithful

[Belligerent Savant]

.
We'll likely never know what actually occurred in there. Additional details will invariably emerge in the weeks and months ahead, by both questionable and -- arguably -- reputable sources. Blogs and/or forum posts will be posted that will further dissect the available information -- some in an effort to provide a semblance of objective, investigative analysis, others to simply confirm their inherent bias(es).

The truth is unlikely to ever be unearthed in full -- and certainly never to be acknowledged "officially".

This is becoming a recurring theme in "post-reality" America, unfortunately.

Since we're speculating (wildly in some instances, including now):

- Mateen was a patron that night, unarmed. He would have been 'groomed' to some degree over time and/or identified as an unwitting 'mark'/patsy leading up to this event. Armed assailants come in -- with various forms of assistance/stage-setting, etc. -- commit the atrocity (including Mateen in the list of casualties, natch) and unleash the 'media campaign' setting up Mateen as the lone nut. Certain media channels and/or authorities would need to be complicit, wittingly and non, to carry this out. Similar scenarios may have occurred during other recent/similar events over the last few years.

- Slight variation to the above: Mateen entered the club armed with malevolent intention, though influenced by entities in 'intel'. Same planning. Same result.

- Mateen was indeed a lone assassin inspired to murder due to his recent adoption of extremist religious views (and/or extreme latent homophobia). Certain details, such as his father's associations in govt circles, Mateen's employment history, or the FBI's prior attempt to "recruit"/entrap him are little more than odd accents to the official narrative.

- Any number of variations to the above.

[SonicG]

I had never heard Casiano before, but hey, Cristobal Colon....

[MacCruiskeen]

stefano, hiya buddy.

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that the shooter was someone other than Omar Mateen. What do you think the most likely answer is to the question: what did they do with him?

I think they shot him dead in Pulse, along with 49 other clubgoers.

[brekin]

stefano, hiya buddy.

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that the shooter was someone other than Omar Mateen. What do you think the most likely answer is to the question: what did they do with him?

I think they shot him dead in Pulse, along with 49 other clubgoers.

So you don't think he (the real shooter) isn't one of the 49 victims? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/us/orland ... -profiles/
But an extra 51st they carried out?
And you think Mateen was just hanging out at Pulse like he normally did? And then was framed up with weapons?

[MacCruiskeen]

So you don't think he (the real shooter) isn't one of the 49 victims? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/us/orland ... -profiles/
But an extra 51st they carried out?

Maybe they shot the shooter too. Or maybe he was too valuable to waste. Maybe he got away scot-free with a complementary first-class plane-ticket and a nice new platinum card for a secret bank account in, oh, Panama or somewhere. I don't know.

And you think Mateen was just hanging out at Pulse like he normally did? And then was framed up with weapons?

That strikes me as a much more plausible scenario than the one we are being sold (with increasing desperation). The Designated Culprit had no plausible motive and no history whatsoever of jihadist sympathies, seriously violent tendencies, or chronically erratic behaviour. He was happily married with a young son, and he had been employed for over nine years by the same company --- a security company, which can surely have been expected to place particular importance on its employees being reliable, punctual, calm and stable, and on them not being ISIS sympathizers. (Security companies do run stringent security checks on their employees, yes, especially when they're CIA Wackyhat Inc.)

edit: isis/wackenhut bit added

[MacCruiskeen]

I saw some TV news witch solemnly adducing the fact that Omar Mateen took his wife and kid to Disneyland Florida three times as strong prima facie evidence that the family had been casing the joint for a terrorist attack.


The Disneyland Visitors of Utter Evil.

- Talking of TV witches: Why is the child's face visible here and nowhere else? I found the image on Pamela Geller's website. Maybe she wants him to be identified in the kindergarten and lynched. How happy he looks here. How happy they all look.

Note the Mickey Mouse T-Shirt of Utter Evil.

http://pamelageller.com/2016/06/exclusi ... plot.html/

(The comments under that article are well worth a look.)

[Novem5er]

That strikes me as a much more plausible scenario than the one we are being sold (with increasing desperation). The Designated Culprit had no plausible motive and no history whatsoever of jihadist sympathies, seriously violent tendencies, or chronically erratic behaviour. He was happily married with a young son, and he had been employed for over nine years by the same company --- a security company, which can surely have been expected to place particular importance on its employees being reliable, punctual, calm and stable, and on them not being ISIS sympathizers. (Security companies do run stringent security checks on their employees, yes, especially when they're CIA Wackyhat Inc.)

edit: isis/wackenhut bit added

Mac, you are being ridiculous. You are constructing a narrative that is every bit as speculative as the one you are fighting against. No plausible motive? Happily married? No violent tendencies?

You dismiss the ex-wife who said he was abusive. You dismiss the coworkers who say he was angry and racist. You dismiss the FBI investigating him in the past (brought about by workplace conflict). You dismiss the apparent conflict of gay-tendencies and his Islamic upbringing. Fine! Dismiss all this - that's your prerogative.

But then you see a few family photos and insist that he was a stable, happily married man and a good father . . . This is your evidence? This is your smoking gun?

[Wombaticus Rex]

You are constructing a narrative that is every bit as speculative as the one you are fighting against.

Which is where I was rather hoping this thread would wind up: black comedy.

[MacCruiskeen]

November comes round again, as it always must: with blustery winds. See how True Believers react when the basis of their faith is even slightly challenged, even with a mere hypothesis. Look at the best evidence November can adduce in support of that faith: hearsay (from notorious liars with a long criminal record, i.e. the FBI), assurances from former acquaintances that the Designated Culprit was not faultless even back then, and feeble innuendo eagerly transported by every hack in Christendom. (Yes, you heard me right.)

I am not impressed. That makes me "ridiculous", apparently. Soon I'll be called "deranged" again, or even "Godless". Or just "really, really mean".

Anyway, that first "wife". Who is she? She popped up pretty damn quick, didn't she? And so talkative and forthcoming and telegenic too. Frankly, she was pretty damn hot, if you like the tragic type. She reminded me immediately of someone else who "emerged",like a daffodil in March, around the very same time:


Former "wife" Sitora Yusufiy, definitely not CIA.


"Former" CIA officer Amaryllis Fox.

Was that a Green Card marriage? He's a US citizen, she's from Kazakhstan. They were together for three months, years ago. And then, for some unfathomable reason, they waited two years until getting a divorce.

In any case, if having an ex-girlfriend say you were an asshole counts as evidence of terrorist proclivities then raise both those hands slowly, gentlemen, cos you're all goin' to the jail.

[MacCruiskeen]

The Green Card of Utter Evil

[brekin]

So you don't think he (the real shooter) isn't one of the 49 victims? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/us/orland ... -profiles/
But an extra 51st they carried out?

Maybe they shot the shooter too. Or maybe he was too valuable to waste. Maybe he got away scot-free with a complementary first-class plane-ticket and a nice new platinum card for a secret bank account in, oh, Panama or somewhere. I don't know.

And you think Mateen was just hanging out at Pulse like he normally did? And then was framed up with weapons?

That strikes me as a much more plausible scenario than the one we are being sold (with increasing desperation). The Designated Culprit had no plausible motive and no history whatsoever of jihadist sympathies, seriously violent tendencies, or chronically erratic behaviour. He was happily married with a young son, and he had been employed for over nine years by the same company --- a security company, which can surely have been expected to place particular importance on its employees being reliable, punctual, calm and stable, and on them not being ISIS sympathizers. (Security companies do run stringent security checks on their employees, yes, especially when they're CIA Wackyhat Inc.)

edit: isis/wackenhut bit added

Mac, I think this outlines what has been happening all along, which you have been reluctant to admit to. You can't poke holes in the standard narrative without implying that there is (are) alternative narrative(s) that you are really entertaining. Which I think is fine, speculation is good and called for. But when you demand (I don't think that is too strong a word) that people provide evidence (some of it very reasonable but possibly hard to, or impossible to provide) to prove the standard narrative to you, while not providing much of your own proof against the standard narrative or for the alternative then it just becomes a shouting match against secondary, tertiary, etc viewpoints and beliefs.

The standard narrative is just a hypothesis, but right now it is the best working one. You have your hypothesis as a few others do, but until you provide evidence against the standard one and for yours, this is just going to be a one sided "denial of everything" with the main claim being a super objective motive based on supposed ideology. Do you see the irony of requiring a preponderance of evidence for the mass shooting's identity when you can put forward the possibility that the real shooter figuratively teleported out of the club or was suicided even though heavily armed, or special ops whatev? If you don't provide support for this, (or even deign to articulate the alternative) then you are relying on ideology (ptb uses false flags to foster continuing anti-Muslim holy war) to convince people of your own hypothesis.

[PufPuf93]

If you'll humour my rabid, fearful handwaving for just an instant:

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that the shooter was someone other than Omar Mateen. What do you think the most likely answer is to the question: what did they do with him?

Just humour me, please. Tolerate the pants-shitting, foamy-mouthed terror that so clearly comes through in my writing (and in that of the other craven establishment-worshippers that hang around here).

Here is a scenario where the "hidden hand" is a covert operation from beginning to end by the "powers that be".

The "powers that be" want a domestic radical Islamists attack, want to have more gun control, want to have more police state powers, and want to create more sympathy and acceptance and condemnation simultaneously of GLBT and Latins.

The FBI and MIC "captured" media plus pundits and politicians are the operators and indirect operators respectively.

The FBI interviews possible Islamic domestic jihadists and decides on Omar Mateen as most useful. Maybe someone at Wackenhut even gets a finder's fee.

Omar Mateen refuses to cooperate and knows nothing about a planned terrorist event but the FBI and other operators construct the event around the circumstances of Omar Mateen's life (his family, personal issues, where he hangs out, etc.) who the FBI has subjected to the first degree of interrogation.

Omar Mateen suddenly disappears but not to Pulse but to the deep blue sea or maybe is killed in Pulse but was not the shooter.

Actual operatives do the atrocity - "professional" - and most clean up happens in the three hours of supposed siege. There is only text with his wife Noor, because Omar is not who is actually texting her.

The "body" of Omar is just another nameless patsy (for Mac and why no good description) or actually Omar.

The media and authorities and politicians do their propaganda, most not knowing nor inclined to vary from the desired narrative.

Those with first hand knowledge of Omar Mateen are shocked but know nothing more of substance than Omar is gone and the presumed shooter; mostly they worry about their own asses.

[Novem5er]

November comes round again, as it always does. See how True Believers react when the basis of their faith is even slightly challenged, even with a mere hypothesis. Look at the best evidence November can adduce in support of that faith: Hearsay (from notorious liars with a long criminal record, i.e. the FBI), assurances from former acquaintances that the Designated Culprit was not faultless even back then, and feeble innuendo transported by every hack in Christendom. (Yes, you heard me right.)

I am not impressed. That makes me "ridiculous", apparently. Soon I'll be called "deranged" again, or even "godless". Or just "really, really mean".

-snip-

In any case, if having your ex-girlfriend say you were an asshole counts as evidence of terrorist proclivities then raise both those hands slowly, gentlemen, cos you're all you're goin' to the jail.

Honestly, people are mostly attacking you and your theory because you're being an ass about it. You aren't throwing a question out to the universe and inviting speculation; you've created an alternative narrative, based not on evidence, but on a lack of evidence of the official story, and then blasted everyone who IS speculating on your theory as a Faithful Sheep of the Mainstream. Nobody has cried out "don't dare question the narrative!". Nobody. Instead, they've taken you to task because you've created a different narrative that you cannot back up with evidence, a narrative based only on your lack of trust in the only evidence we actually have.

And that's fine. Don't trust the Orlando police. Don't trust the Feds. Don't trust his employer, his ex-wife, or his ex-coworkers. Don't trust the guns store who called the FBI. Don't trust the survivors who at anytime could say "No, that wasn't him!". Probably a lot of here don't trust some of those, or all of those, either.

But saying "I don't trust the sources - so we have no idea WHAT happened" is different from saying "I don't trust the sources, therefore THIS happened, PROVE me wrong, and you're a sheep if you don't agree with me".

[Nordic]

Ok I have to call something out here. Mac is speculating. Yes. He's been asked and pressured to speculate, as we all are when we announce that we trust nothing about the official story. Then were trounced upon because we speculated.

I think the point of speculating is not to claim you know the truth but to say "hey for all we know THIS is what actually happened".


You know, like we've done for fucking ever, about 911, about JFK, about damn near everything we talk about here.

You don't have to provide a solid case with evidence to back you up when you are admittedly speculating!

I think people's emotional reactions to Mac's manner, which is abrasive to say the least, are coloring people's abilities to think straight.

Should we believe the official story about a shooting such as this after what happened in San Bernadino?

If the answer isn't clearly "NO" I ask you "why?"

Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. We don't know!

[Burnt Hill]

Ok I have to call something out here. Mac is speculating. Yes. He's been asked and pressured to speculate, as we all are when we announce that we trust nothing about the official story. Then were trounced upon because we speculated.

I think the point of speculating is not to claim you know the truth but to say "hey for all we know THIS is what actually happened".


You know, like we've done for fucking ever, about 911, about JFK, about damn near everything we talk about here.

You don't have to provide a solid case with evidence to back you up when you are admittedly speculating!

I think people's emotional reactions to Mac's manner, which is abrasive to say the least, are coloring people's abilities to think straight.

Should we believe the official story about a shooting such as this after what happened in San Bernadino?

If the answer isn't clearly "NO" I ask you "why?"

Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. We don't know!

Mac challenged the board and doesn't need defending.