Introduction by Kennedy Applebaum
June 29, 2016
One of the oddest things about media reports of the Orlando shooting is that they continue to announce, more than two weeks after the incident, that 49 to 50 people were killed. This is the same number stated on June 12, 2016, the morning of the tragedy. Yet the Orlando Regional Medical Center reported via Twitter on June 16 that nine additional people had died in the hospital, while six were still in critical condition. This means 58 or more have perished as a result of the shooting. Why is this figure not reported?
Another strange fact we’ve discussed at Quemado Institute, and which political analyst Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out, is that not one single eye-witness on-site photo or video of the event or victims has appeared on Twitter or the Internet, a seemingly impossible omission. Roberts concludes the event might never have happened. In fact, he argues this so convincingly, we published his commentary here, despite our initial skepticism.
Internet sites also continue to rehash whether the shooting was indeed a “terrorist” act, using various assumptions about the meaning of the word “terrorism”. Properly defined, “terrorism” is deliberately harming or killing civilians to create terror for strategic ends.
Must an act of terror be state sponsored to qualify as terrorism? Some say yes. But this is nonsense. A terrorist act can further the agenda of any organized group, be it a government, a religious entity, a political faction or a rogue military unit, such as the independent Ukrainian Nazi battalions that conduct terrorism in Donbass. Radical Islam transcends national boundaries, yet conducts frequent terrorist acts.
Some say a terrorist act cannot be carried out by an individual, but only qualifies as terrorism if the perpetrator worked in concert with a group. This too is nonsense. An individual can commit terrorism independently to further the ends of a broader group, especially if that group makes its goals public, as Radical Islam does—the goals being to destroy Christianity, the United States, or its allies in Western Europe.
There seems no rational reason for imagining the Orlando shooting does not qualify a terrorism—that is, if the incident took place at all.
For those interested in getting to the bottom of the story, The League of Power—-a news source with an apparent business and political agenda not well known to us here—has published what seems a frank and truthful account of what’s behind the Orlando shooting. Verifying these details is, however, beyond the capacity of Quemado Institute.
Obama’s Censorship of the Orlando Shooting
By Mark Patricks
The League of Power
June 29, 2016
In the wake of the appalling and tragic shooting that left 49 people dead and 53 injured at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to label the incident a pure crime of hatred motivated by homophobia. This is despite there being evidence that the shooter, Omar Sateen, was a closeted homosexual and a regular at the club.
What is incontestable, however, is that Sateen, who was a practicing Muslim and whose parents are Afghani, attended a mosque in Fort Pierce, Florida, and ultimately sold his house to his Afghani Muslim relatives for $10 in the months prior to the attack.
His father, Mir Seddique, had declared allegiance to the Taliban and had stated that he wished to be president of Afghanistan.
During the horrific attack, Sateen made numerous statements to people in the club, to emergency telephone operators and to a television station producer that very clearly announced his motives in terrorizing the establishment and slaughtering its patrons.
At approximately 2:02 a.m., the determined killer opened fire inside the venue, mowing down approximately 20 people before barricading himself in a bathroom with an additional 20 to 30 patrons.
From inside the bathroom, Sateen made two calls to 911, pledging allegiance to the Islamic State and referring to the Boston Marathon bombings and their perpetrators, the infamous Tsarnaev brothers. He also alluded to a known suicide bomber who was associated with the Syrian al Nusra Front.
Sateen claimed he had a vest of the type “used in France” and that “in the next few days, you’re going to see more of this type of action going on.”
Patrons in the club heard Sateen very clearly say several times, “Tell America to stop bombing ISIS in Syria.”
At 2:45 a.m., Sateen called Orlando television station News 13 and declared to producer Matt Gentii that he had committed the attack on behalf of ISIS. Sateen posted a similar message on Facebook from his cellphone. The last communication he made was to his wife, texting her to ask whether the local news had reported his attack.
By 4:30 a.m., a SWAT team forced their way into the building used explosive charges, an armored vehicle and gunfire (its leader later acknowledged that the team may have directed friendly fire at some patrons who were hostages). After a brief firefight, the team fatally shot Sateen, ending the siege. Injured victims and their family members were taken to the Orlando Medical Center where ultimately the alarming body count was recorded.
At 1:50 p.m. the next day, after many public outpourings of grief and rage, President Obama made a statement, saying the attack was “an act of hate… what is clear is that [Sateen] was a person filled with hatred.” Obama pointedly omitted any mention of Islam or radicalization.
In response to innumerable media inquiries, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the FBI would be releasing transcripts of the conversations between Sateen and police and 911 operators, in which he had declared allegiance to Islam, ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Incredibly, AG Lynch announced that the complete transcripts would not be released, and references to ISIS and other jihadist statements would be redacted. The published transcript ended up changing the word “Allah” to “God,” nearly erasing the specificity of the religious content of the messages and instead making it appear as if the real culprit of the attack was generic “extremism,” rather than fanatical devotion to a particular religion (Islam).
This purposeful censorship of the records of the attack initially appears to be almost unprecedented in the history of the Obama administration, but several sources have revealed this is not the first time the administration has changed references to “Allah” to the more generic “God.”
Only after immediate public outcries did Ms. Lynch without notice reverse course and order the Bureau to disclose the full transcripts, with the Justice Department grudgingly admitting that it was in the interest of providing “the highest level of transparency possible” to release the entire conversations. However, the “Allah” to “God” translation is still present and numerous words in Arabic are left untranslated.
Such a blatant attempt at censorship should leave even the most disinterested observer with no doubt that the Obama administration is clearly trying to push its own agenda and control the narrative.
Attempting to frame the news in a subjective way and omit key information about a domestic incident of terrorism is a very frightening step toward Orwellian propagandism that even liberal observers might previously not have thought possible of Obama.
Rebukes from Republican sources and commentators were swift and stinging. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump repeated his earlier criticisms that Obama has a problem with using the phrase “radical Islam” in relation to terrorism. “You don’t want redacted. You don’t want those words taken out,” Trump stated.
“It is about radical Islamic terrorism. They wanted to take those kind of words and referencing that particular thing… That’s not what the people want. They want honesty. They want to have honesty and we’re not getting honesty and the president is not wanting to talk about the problem. It’s a problem of radical Islam and if we don’t talk about it, we’re never going to solve the problem.”
On June 21 in Orlando, Attorney General Lynch compounded problems by saying in a press conference that the U.S.’s best weapon against terror was “love.”
This brought even more furor from conservatives, with GOP Congressman Jeff Duncan (R – S.C.) saying that “this Administration has no idea what it takes to fight Islamic terrorism” and that Lynch should “resign immediately.”
Conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote that the White House was going out of its way to distance the attack from Islamism, which he claimed showed a dearth of “respect” for the victims of the attack.
“Everybody understands under President Obama you are not to make any reference that could possibly indict Islam or radical Islam, Islamism, in a mass murder… So you have to pretend otherwise. Look, the reason they [released the unredacted transcript] is because it was beyond stupid. It was ridiculous. It was an embarrassment… Everybody could see what the words underneath were. And what exactly are they accomplishing pretending they weren’t said? It exposes the administration as fanatical in trying to cover up and hide the connection with Islam.”
Krauthammer went on to say that when combining this incident with questions raised by Fox News commentator James Rosen over public deceptions regarding Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, a larger, disturbing issue is revealed — one of distorting historical events.
It’s one thing to classify material in the name of national security. But to omit information or to flat out lie to the public about events (especially instances of domestic terrorism) is outrageous.
Both Obama’s and Attorney General Lynch’s feet should be held to the fire over this affair; there’s never justification for lying or covering up facts from the American people.
[Editor’s note: this article was received as an email with no link to the source.]
ABOUT the League of Power (from the League of Power website): So what is The League of Power exactly? Let me first say what The League of Power ISN’T: This is not some whacky cult and it’s not a religion. We’re perfectly legal and above board. It’s not an MLM/network marketing scheme or any sort of business opportunity. So what is it? An Internet secret society with a single mission: to liberate its members from slavery to ‘The Man’ through the FREE distribution of hard core information and mutually empowering introductions. Freedom by Friday is one such example. In short, we give the gift of wealth, power and freedom. Fortunes are made by an introduction, a phone call, a nod from an insider, trade-marking a few words or an idea or the registration of a website name. That’s what we’re about- that’s what we do on a regular basis, as do many of my brothers and sisters in The League of Power. There was a time when this would have been a crazy dream, but in the information age, it’s reality… We aim to empower our members to make more on a single handshake than a year working for ‘the Man’! And this is can be a reality for those who utilize what we teach them.
No comments yet.