I used to try to cover terror incidents or suspected false-flag ops in detail: I have an archive of articles devoted solely to the various terror incidents across the West in the last several years.
But I eventually got so bored of the subject, because it got to the point where it almost didn’t matter anymore whether any given attack was a genuine terror attack, a false-flag or a case of state-enabled terrorism.
So, as for this latest car attack in Westminster… meh.
Could’ve been real or could’ve been staged. Does anyone care anymore? Everyone’s response is going to be predetermined anyway: those who believe in the false-flag ops will believe it’s a false-flag, while those who don’t will believe it was a real terror attack – and therefore any drawn-out efforts at detailed analysis or research become purely academic and a waste of time and energy, since the majority of people are stuck firmly in the realm of memes, hashtags and/or confirmation bias.
And others of course will use it to continue the Us-Versus-Them cultural/religious/racial paradigm. Don’t need to bother looking at Geert Wilders’ or Tommy Robinson’s Twitter feed this evening – it all runs like clockwork.
Also – no joke – I saw people calling it a ‘false-flag’ organised by Jeremy Corbyn to deflect attention away from the Anti-Semitism crisis: which just proves that we have reached a point of almost total futility.
I was wondering briefly about my own apathy: and then I decided to do Google and YouTube searches to see if anyone else was talking about the latest Westminster incident being a false-flag – and I found absolutely fuck-all.
Clearly, no one cares anymore: but I’m not entirely sure whether this is because most people assume a false-flag or because most people no longer believe in false-flags.
In the spirit of continuity, however, I will just ask a couple of random, non-forensic questions here.
Firstly, who carries out a terror attack at 7.30 in the morning?
Second, why did he choose Westminster/Parliament as a target, given that security there has supposedly been beefed up after last year’s Westminster attack?
I mean, I guess you’d just call it ‘low level’ terrorism with little preparation – but this one seems devoid of any forethought. Was he just a tribute act to last year’s 3/22 car-attack on Parliament (which was pretty much a false-flag)?
Who was he targeting? A bunch of random cyclists? If you’re targeting a bunch of random cyclists, why bother going specifically to Parliament? Why not go somewhere more crowded for maximum harm?
Also, this looks like the most pathetic, inept ‘terror attack’ to date. And the perpetrator, who we’re told is from Sudan, must’ve known he was going to be caught easily – which, psychologically speaking, makes it dubious that he would bother with such a feeble, half-arsed attack.
I suppose he could just be mentally damaged or not thinking straight.
Also, I haven’t been able to get a definitive answer as to whether Westminster’s CCTV system is online again.
As I noted as soon as the first attack on Parliament happened last March, the CCTV systems across Westminster had oddly been switched off a few months prior.
As I noted then, it’s very odd for Westminster – of all places – to switch off its CCTV, given that London is reportedly otherwise the most CCTV-heavy city in the world. As I asked back then, if London is saturated in CCTV – why would they deactivate the CCTV in the part of the city that houses all of the government locations?
Certainly, once the 3/22/17 Westminster attack happened, you’d think there would’ve been a rush to restore all CCTV, right? Shouldn’t that have been a basic response?
I’ve looked it up and there seems to be conflicting statements as to what the CCTV situation is in Westminster. However, I did find this BBC report from last month, in which it appears the CCTV hasn’t been restored.
According to the report from July, ‘The Mayor of London has criticised Westminster Council for “dragging its feet” in reinstalling previously removed CCTV cameras… Only 14 cameras are currently active in the centre, compared to the 75 which were operational in 2016…’
The article quotes London Mayor Sadiq Khan as saying “I’m really disappointed that the council took a decision in 2016 to decommission and remove CCTV cameras which we know are crucial for the safety of London…”
So it seems that Westminster would be the perfect location to carry out another low-level, random false-flag. That makes sense – otherwise you’d have to ask why the terrorist would bother with a second attack on Parliament, at 7.30 in the morning?
If it is a false-flag, it’s gotten so lazy at this point that I imagine there’ll be another one specifically in Westminster at some point – at least until the CCTV is all restored. It’s just so convenient.
Funny though – that the actual false-flags have gotten so lazy and the response to the possible false-flags has also gotten so lazy. Like I said, I did some browsing – and it seems like no one cares anymore.
We – as the general public – have apparently gotten so lazy and apathetic that the ‘conspirators’ have also gotten sloppy, becasue they can afford to be. Either that or it’s a sloppy terrorist. Either way, sloppiness all around.
There’s also some talk now of the ‘white van filmed driving erratically as it pursued the terror suspect who ploughed into cyclists and pedestrians is at the centre of growing speculation that the “attacker” was being followed.’
They have said, however, that the perpetrator was unknown to the authorities (for once). So, was he being followed? Or guided?
Whatever. No one cares anymore, do they?
For all ‘False-Flag Terror’ articles, see here.