Newt Gingrich Tweeted About “California Terrorist Attack” Relating it to ISIS™ on Nov. 13th

by Scott Creighton (H/T tommyknocker1 )

In an effort to push for a new congressional authorization for the use of military force, a real Tweet from Newt Gingrich’s Twitter account dated Nov. 13th, stated the following:

“Maybe scale of the Paris attack following Russian airline bombing and California terrorist attack will convince our leaders this is real war” Newt Gingrich

Here is the Tweet itself. If given enough attention, I’m sure it will be gone in a short while.

Considering the implications of this Tweet, I decided to ask Newt about his statement.

question

Newt was forecasting the exact talking points being used right now to push for more war in the Middle East and across the globe.

Neocon warmongers are saying that these three recent events have seriously escalated the “war with ISIS™” to the point where we need to arm the president with a new authorization for the use of military force bill. They want to make war in places like Nigeria, Libya, Sinai, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and anywhere else various populations start to take exception to our American Exceptionalism.

The problem here is that Newt seems to have tipped his hand a little with this Tweet since the San Bernardino shootings didn’t take place until Dec. 2, 2015. And that phony pledge from the Facebook spokesman aside, they still haven’t tied it into ISIS™ (though now they seem to be trying to do just that with the mysterious, kidnapped, brainwashed “friend” of Farooq)

I decided to try to nip Newt’s response in the bud a little. I figure he’s going to try to argue that he was talking about another ISIS™ terrorist attack in California just prior to the Paris attacks. Problem is, none exists.

If you go to this webpage, they list all the major shootings in US history since 1984. Prior to San Bernardino, you have to go all the way back to May of 2014 and Isla Vista, Cal. That was that bad actor Elliot Rodger. In his lengthy manifesto and his multiple poorly acted “confession” type videos, he never once mentions ISIS™. It simply wasn’t terrorism. Or at least, not the kind Newt and his buddies at the MIC needs right now.

As far as events classified as “terrorist attacks” in California, the only thing that I see is the San Bernardino shooting.

Back in Feb. of 2014, a couple guys took sniper rifles and shot an electrical substation. They tried too say that was terrorism. But it wasn’t.

But that’s all I have been able to find so I have to wonder, what California terrorist attack was Newt Gingrich talking about in his Tweet on Nov. 13, 2015?

Did he share his insight with local authorities?

Could the whole thing have been prevented if he did?

Was he forecasting a terrorist event in California… or asking for one?

When you consider the fact that Newt represents a group of individuals who have been calling for an escalation of the current war on terror for sometime and the fact that this terrorist attack in California provided just the right incentive to push congress and the American people toward accepting their desired goal… then you add in the undeniable fact that he mentioned the damn terrorist attack 2 weeks prior to it happening… seems pretty obvious to me the FBI should be dragging Newt Gingrich into an interrogation room instead of Enrique Marquez.

But that’s just me.

Please help keep us up and running if you can.

Speaking truth ABOUT power since 2007

(For my mailing address, please email me at RSCdesigns@tampabay.rr.com)

output_95f0q7

 

19 Responses

  1. I shared this on Facebook and someone said he was referring to the Merced College attack. Apparently he’d pledged to ISIS.

    • I don’t think that fits:

      Mohammad’s plan for revenge discussed his anger with being kicked out of the study group, the sheriff said, but he didn’t know why the computer science and engineering major was excluded from the group.”…

      “Warnke said Mohammad’s plan was written in English and referenced the Muslim god Allah several times. But Warnke said the student was motivated by personal animosities and the attacks had nothing to do with religion or terrorism.

      We had a teenager who was upset he was kicked out of a study group,” Warnke said. “We had a teenager who didn’t know how to channel his anger.”

      source

      A pissed off teenager with a little knife and four wounded victims elicits a call from Newt Gingrich to wage endless war against “ISIS”? I’m sure they have been trying to find something to say he was talking about since he posted the Tweet, but the Merced College attack seems like a pretty weak excuse don’t you think?

      Officials said background checks with the help of the FBI and Homeland Security showed the 18-year-old had no connections to organized hate or terror groups and no past behavior to suggest he would lash out violently.

      Plus, the big push right now is using the three events, not 4. So it seems all of a sudden, that particular “California terrorist event” isn’t considered a terrorist event by the warmongers… so, I kind of take them at their word.

  2. As we’ve seen many times in the past, tweets have shown up just prior or simultaneously with events. Perhaps Nov. 13 was going to be the original event date and was postponed for some reason, but they forgot to tell Newt!

  3. Good Catch Scott!

  4. I’m certain that you are already aware of this, but on the off-chance that your aren’t, “False Flag Islamophobia Conference: Live Stream from Paris ”

    or

    http://memoryholeblog.com/2015/12/12/false-flag-islamophobia-conference-live-stream-from-paris-on-dec-12th/

  5. At this juncture, I think it would be advisable for us to remind ourselves what “terrorism” is.

    In the US, according to the FBI…

    Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

    18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled “Terrorism”:

    “International terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

    Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
    Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*

    “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

    Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
    Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
    Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

    I like how the FBI seems to think that “federal or state law” applies “outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.” I wonder if their site gives a definition for ‘jurisdiction’?

    The important part of any universal definition of “terrorism” appears to be:

    “Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government”

    So, let’s take the Paris or SB things as examples (pretending that “ISIS” exists and did the deed).

    Paris. Out of the above definition, I might grudgingly allow “intimidate a civilian population”, but the definition itself lacks a motive. Why would “ISIS” want to intimidate a civilian population that was against attacking it? Intimidate it TO DO WHAT? Retaliate? Doesn’t make sense.

    SanB. If you don’t even bother to leave a reasonable clue as to whom you were representing, the definition would be hard-pressed to apply to you. And, are we supposed to imagine that the American population was supposed to be intimidated by 14 people being killed (after it supposedly wasn’t by 3000 being killed)?

    In law, if I steal a loaf of bread, I can’t reasonably be held to be trying to take over the world… unless I’ve made it clear that that was the first part of my plan. Even then, I’d be held to be nuts long before I’d be believed and taken seriously.

    Why is it that, beyond being automatically and enthusiastically taken seriously on very shaky grounds, any Muslim who (purportedly) attacks anything is accorded “terrorist” status, no matter his or her ultimate achievement? A Muslim doesn’t have to intimidate or coerce. All he has to do is APPEAR to INTEND to.

    Meanwhile, “Appear to be intended to intimidate a civilian population” covers just about any act a human being could undertake, including being held to have been looking at a the patrons of a bar “funny”, or just being a school bully or simply walking down the street (it’s not you, it’s how you APPEARED). It’s the Exceptional version of giving the Evil Eye. Anyone is fair game for being accused and strung up.

    As such, “terrorism” as defined by the PTB means squat. We shouldn’t endorse that Newspeak by debating whether this or that event, whether considered genuine or not, constituted terrorism. We should take the time to laboriously type out, each time, “Coalition-defined terrorism”.

    Actual terrorism may be defined as:

    “a propaganda-driven offence that:

    appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to support immediate or eventual action, taken by their government overseas and/or at home, that is designed to inhibit the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

  6. […] willyloman| In an effort to push for a new congressional authorization for the use of military force, a real Tweet from Newt Gingrich’s Twitter account dated Nov. 13th, stated the following: […]

  7. […] terrorist attack.” Doesn’t prove anything, but it is unsettling. See more here and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: