ISIS is a US creation, its fighters used as imperial foot soldiers, deployed where Washington wants them sent – a conspiracy against world peace and stability.
Why would the group bite the hand feeding it? Draw your own conclusions about Tuesday’s Manhattan incident and ISIS claiming responsibility – calling suspect Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov a “soldier of the caliphate.”
He’s badly wounded and hospitalized, kept under wraps, prevented from speaking publicly, the FBI controlling the information flow about what happened so only its version of things can get out.
Was Tuesday’s incident terrorism or a false flag? It’s unknown, yet suspicions are warranted.
Numerous previous incidents in America and Europe called terrorism were state-sponsored false flags, including 9/11, the mother of them all.
Was Tuesday Manhattan incident the latest one? The fullness of time may tell what Saipov so far can’t explain. All we know is what he’s reputed to have said, nothing from him directly.
ISIS provided no evidence supporting its claim of inspiring what happened. Its fingerprints aren’t on the Manhattan incident or any other previous similar Western ones.
Media scoundrels pronounced Saipov guilty straightaway, along with authorities – before he was officially charged.
Guilt by accusation is longstanding US policy against individuals it wants incarcerated – or simply detained indefinitely without charges or trials, the fate of undisclosed numbers in US global torture prisons.
Charges against Saipov were detailed in a lengthy 10-page indictment on November 1, presented in US federal district court less than 24 hours after the October 31 incident.
United States of America v. Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov reads like it was prepared in advance of what happened.
Legitimate indictments take time to prepare, following evidence collected. The one against Saipov came out overnight, a red flag like other disturbing ones following Tuesday’s incident.
The note and photo of an ISIS flag he allegedly left behind could have been planted. Yet media scoundrels continue accepting official reports unquestionably like they always do, repeating them stenographically.
Charges against Saipov claimed a black bag was found at the crime scene containing three knives. Were they his, or were they planted?
Killer cops in America plant guns or other weapons at crime scenes to conceal their own wrongdoing, unjustifiably justifying lethal shootings of victims.
According to official reports, Saipov confessed to plotting Tuesday’s incident after hearing an ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s audio recording.
Maybe so. Maybe not. All that’s known is what federal authorities claim, the FBI controlling reports, not Saipov directly, the only reliable source, no others.
Was he radicalized to become an ISIS sympathizer? Are official reports about what happened last Tuesday accurate?
Will Saipov get a chance to explain things himself? Will he get his day in court in proceedings open to the public?
If not, taking nothing officially reported at face value, suspect coverup of vital information.
Submit your review