I posted this on ConsumeProduct.win last night and they told me I would get better answers on here. I don't at all believe the official story but I don't understand the leap to the Saudi arms deal theory either. I think the most likely explanation is that they needed a high profile mass shooting to stoke public sympathy for gun control so they found a random guy who was already a little bit crazy and prodded him along (Just think, MKULTRA is what they will openly admit to. Imagine what they're keeping secret.) to kill a lot of people. I think this is probably the case for almost all of the more recent mass shootings, going back to at least Sandy Hook. With that said, I'm not unwilling to believe the Saudi theory if I see a compelling argument for it, so what is the reasoning and evidence behind it?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (14)
sorted by:
It's a failed assassination attempt. The lower level Saudi royal family is mad at the crown prince for giving women more rights and trying to diversify the country away from oil and become more "western". They tried to knock him off in Nevada but the prince found out and never went back to his hotel room.
The media never followed up on the shooting and just reported the narrative. Never questioned why a mass shooter needs a hundred guns just for himself. The guns were a floor below the crown prince because when he is in town he rents the entire floor. They needed a bunch of guns because the prince has heavy security. They were going to storm the floor with a few dozen militants. The prince was tipped off and never went back to the hotel. So they killed padlock shot out the window and called it a mass shooting.
I read somewhere that if the assassination went through it would have created world war 3 because so many countries have a hand in Saudi but I forgot where I read that.
Keep Saudi stable keeps the rest of the region stable. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/how-stable-saudi-arabia