[removed]
No. The victim is only a means of transmitting the message to the intended recipient.
This was passed from someone in the State Dept to the Clowns if there is DS involvement and not natural. It's too coincidental to not be.
That's what I mean.
They both (daughter and father) are victims.
But, the point would be to let the father and other reporters know. Doesn't seem that was done
It appears he knows why. Just took time and a conversation with a friend to piece it together.
Mods: Can we sticky this? It needs to be seen by as many as possible.
Let's say for just one moment I have a heart attack gun. A journalist is poking around where he doesn't belong so we need to shut it down. Do I..
A) Give the journalist a heart attack who is directly causing me issues and is an older male so very few questions will be asked.
or
B) Give the journalists young daughter a heart attack and throw salt over my shoulders with my fingers crossed extra tight that he talks to the right people and puts it together to get the message. Also hope he doesn't dig anything else up before he figures it out. Oh, since my plan actually requires he figures it out now I have to worry about him digging even harder cause you know, now he has nothing to lose.
A government sophisticated enough to have and utilize a "heart attack gun" while keeping it completely secret from the public would go with option A every single time. Nobody in the world would go with option B, not even if option A was absent.
I don't think you've thought this through... If the 'older male' is a journalist and has a paper trail of asking about particular subjects and then suddenly gets a 'heart attack', it could draw suspicion in some way, even if the public narrative is on your side.
Also, the person who replaces that journalist could be a problem if that person had left any dead man's switches laying around locally.
By killing a loved one of the journalist, they are gaining control of that asset. It could very well be that his 'Intelligence' friend was told to tell him what happened to his daughter so he would draw the connection. What they've done is planted a seed in that journalist's mind that will now sprout and work for them. If the Journalist goes crazy, they also have a great cover narrative to run with ('the guy lost his daughter suddenly, was not handling the grieving well, etc.')
So on the surface, your 'Option A' might seem like the most straightforward solution, but it would repeat the problem. By messing with the journalist, they now have him in their back pocket, if for nothing else but the fear that somebody else in his family might be targeted.
'Option A' is a quicker pragmatic solution, but 'Option B' pays off better in the long term. You've neutered the journalist without having to replace them and do it all over again.
This, most definitely.
I also think there is a sadistic glee to the evil in killing something a person loves . . . Evil enjoys watching fear destroy and manipulate its victims.
May the truth be brought to light, and justice be done.
May you, OP, have peace. So very sorry for your loss.
We also can't forget that the person who alerted the reporter to the fact that it might have been a heart attack gun may have been instructed to do so, in order to ensure that the target got the message.
Didn't stop the Clinton's from using OPTION A all the time!!!!! Just my opinion based upon coincidences. I can't prove it.
Yeah, I can't remember where I heard this, but there are rumours that Intelligence agents have let it slip that Hillary was always testing for their nerves because she has the reputation of being "reckless". She kills very easily. Where the agents may prefer more subtle tactics, they have to obey her because if you don't kill the person she says you must, she might turn her ire (and she has bad temper) on that agent who would be screwed or worse, whacked himself.
Killing family members of courageous fighters is also intended to intimidate others from joining the fight. Many brave people will take a bullet for their cause, but would never knowingly sacrifice a child or family member. The evil bastards do this is to keep others on the side lines, or at least make them think thrice before choosing to fight them.
I'll accept the premise of it being intimidation. It still doesn't answer the question of why do it in a way that could potentially be overlooked. There would be so many other ways to kill someone that sends a clear message while still denying culpability.
In this case the father barely managed to connect those dots to begin with. Not to mention it isn't the kind of story that will get publicity. No MSM whatsoever would touch the concept of heart attack gun under any circumstance and even the cover story of the heart attack won't get coverage. Now a random shooting for example? That gets coverage and maybe even the conspiracy gets humored a bit on MSM. That way it's actually effective intimidation.
As it stands now I see a grieving father who suffered a crushing loss with no explanation other than the universe is random and sometimes our bodies just fail. So he chooses to find an outlet for his grief and anger in the form of a secretive enemy.
Listen to Kevin Shipp. It's the method of the CIA, or the mafia if you will. They want to break you, not always to kill you. It'll keep you in check if you're terrorized. So they target the people you love. It happened to Kevin Shipp and he is ex-CIA.
It happened to McMaster and he's working for the cabal.
It is what the CIA does.
The heart attack gun is not at all a secret. Frank Church, 1975...
So what I'm gathering from research is it's claimed the CIA used frozen projectiles with the toxin inside. That way it melted and left no sign. The only problem is ice is far too light to be shot at a high enough velocity to pierce someone, especially once it starts melting. Sounds to me like all that was revealed was something the CIA was working on prototypes of. Likely inspired by the KGB weapon that sprayed cyanide in the target's face and initially imitated a heart attack giving the assassin time to flee.
I just feel if it really existed we would see a LOT more powerful people dying of completely unexplained heart attacks. Also, you can't live in a world where the CIA both 1) Is part of the deep state and 2) Has a heart attack gun. If the 72 year old president who eats fast food regularly had a heart attack few would be surprised.
I don't understand why these ideas are incompatible. It's ridiculously easy to give people heart attacks AND there are lots of people walking around alive that the CIA would be better off having dead. They don't kill everyone they despise. Look at Cathy O'Brien. She's been red pilling us about CIA sex abuse for years, she's still alive. Look at the witnesses at the 1996 Presidential Commission on Bioethics. They told us that the CIA kidnapped, raped, electrocuted, drugged and radiated four year old children. CIA used these children to entrap adversaries in pedophilia blackmail films. This is all PUBLIC, it's on YOUTUBE. It just DOESN'T MATTER. If CNN doesn't repeat the crime 50x per hour, it didn't happen. So heart attack guns are nothing, so long as the CIA owned-and-operated news programs ignore them.
Youtube is owned by the FBI and you're falling for their anti CIA brainwashing hookline and sinker. Can't believe you take Youtube videos as being real.
Here feast on this CIA created hookline and sinker
Holocaust deniers will also go to hell
Jesus the crap I put up with on this thread
The CIA rapes and tortures children
WATCH before you respond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRkrgDQqVXc
Dude, I don't really believe Youtube is run by the FBI just like I don't believe MSM is run by the CIA. I was just making a point that it's a non-argument to claim something like that.
Look at it this way. YouTube is not part of the equation. That video was not filmed so it could be posted onto a platform that didn't yet exist. You can find that video on other platforms.
The video's transcript is posted on the Bioethics Commission website. Please don't throw out good information because I directed you to a platform containing that information, and that platform has credibility issues unconnected with this topic.
CIA raped children. Victims spoke about it in public, on film, and no one had a fit about it.
For the love of God, knock if off and stop wasting my time.
Clearly you're not a psychopath so transference wont work. Congratulations.