by WizardfromOz » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:58 am
No I am sorry - when someone argues a document doesn't contain information it was never meant to contain. Uses that as a prop to dispute other allegations. Finally, for good measure throws in a couple of ifs and a hefty sprinkle of obviously we have a full blown conspiracy.
The documents we are reading are not official releases by the LAPD, this was not some controlled distribution to poison the well - This was a bunch of hackers on the prowl. What have they to gain by not releasing dirt on the LAPD, or are they now part of the conspiracy as well.
Then we consider your statement a few pages back about the FBI having orders to shoot to kill.
Sorry you are way beyond conjecture, you are building a narrative to support a preconceived notion of what you think has happened and will happen. And if this guy dies in a blaze of gunfire, you and others will point to this thread and say, yes they had something to gain by not taking him alive. Rather than consider he'd decided on death by cop as the ultimate addenda to his manifesto.