pull down to refresh
67 sats \ 4 replies \ @anon 20 Jul \ on: Audio Analysis of Trump Assassination Attempt Reveals Multiple Shooters? conspiracy
The idea that it was a conspiracy of multiple shooters is absurd.
- Why would you use more than one shooter who could get caught when one well trained shooter should be able to make the shot? (modulo really bad luck, luck Trump turning his head at exactly the right time...)
- How did multiple shooters all miss?
This kind of absurd conspiracy theory is the type of thing that entities like the CIA may very well be seeding in popular discourse to make conspiracy theorists look like idiots.
I wish anon's could downzap, or I'd downzap this post 10,000sats.
reply
...which is honestly an even more absurd conspiracy theory than multiple shooters. The democrats should be ashamed of themselves. They're the ones harping about disinformation.
It was clearly real bullets, quite a few of them. One even hit a forklift hydraulic hose, causing hydraulic fluid to spray out on camera. Trump would not have risked his life to stage a shooting like that. It makes zero sense.
It's plausible this is a conspiracy to kill Trump. But not plausible it's a conspiracy to make Trump more liked.
reply
one idiot from India said Trump wasn't hit by a bullet but scraped himself when he went down
another reason to dismantle H1B work visa
reply
I don't think the things you call absurd are that absurd but I'm not saying it's what happened either.
Why would you use more than one shooter who could get caught when one well trained shooter should be able to make the shot? (modulo really bad luck, luck Trump turning his head at exactly the right time...)
The thinking goes: if the government employs assassins to do ops like this, they don't want them getting killed or caught. Yet if the assassin escapes, the public will demand they are found. So, they provide a fall guy, someone that can be killed or caught and solely blamed for the assassination, someone with no real connections to or knowledge of the op/other assassin.
If the government does employ assassins to kill heads of state (maybe it's absurd to think they do?), yet it's absurd to employ patsies, then what's reasonable? Is it reasonable to get your assassins killed, caught, or have the public believe a presidential assassin is on the loose for eternity?
There are probably better ways to sneakily kill an old guy than shooting him, but patsies are not "absurd." Unless you believe the official stories of the JFK and RFK assassinations, both are thought to involve patsies (RFK's has incontrovertible evidence of a patsy imo, but I am also an absurd idiot by your standards anon).
How did multiple shooters all miss?
The thinking goes: it's one shooter, and one patsy. So, one shooter missed and the patsy did their job. I don't think it's "absurd" to think people make mistakes doing their jobs.
reply