Photo credit: The Goldwater

​

We know not yet if there is indeed an Islamic Terror Cell aspect to the Las Vegas tragedy at the Route 91 Harvest Festival, where nearly 500 were wounded and 58 were killed.

​

We do know however that Sheriff Lombardo himself said there's a chance Stephen Paddock was radicalized and there is more information coming out each and every day.

​

It certainly seems as if this may be a conspiracy on the grandest of scales; and the term <i>”conspiracy”</i> is meant to imply there must be some outside involvement or information being withheld from the people.

​

Sheriff Lombardo agreed with that statement himself yesterday; stating that it seems unlikely Paddock could have acted alone without help.

​

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility since the beginning, and the intelligence community has been quick to disregard that suggestion of guilt.

​

It seems rather shocking that without all of the facts the IC would engage in ruling out a connection.

​

Look I'm no fan of ISIS claims and I'll be the first to tell you that if a man fell off a roof while constructing shingles ISIS would like to claim that as a result of their actions; but the general fact that law enforcement agencies on the Federal level have ruled it out is mind-boggling when there is so much more to research and understand about Stephen Paddock.

​

In fact it feels like a <i>cover-up</i> if we're being honest.

​

ISIS has a <i>newsletter</i> of sorts called al-Naba, which has printed a new publication of 16 pages that includes an infographic which states, “Las Vegas attacker is a soldier of the Islamic State who carried out the attack in response to calls for targeting coalition countries.”

​

<img src="https://8ch.net/file_store/ab5083523aeb0a899da9bb4d43d3eb7574d6726db5c744c58cbfc2649526eba4.png" style="max-height:640px;max-width:360px;">

​

Why would our intelligence community rule this out?

​

The Amaq News Agency; which nonstop runs the propaganda and purported message of ISIS confirms these claims as if they're legitimate.

​

The Nashir channel and affiliated al-Batar Media Foundation also state that Stephen Paddock was indeed radicalized and converted to Islam six months ago.

​

It undoubtedly fits the bill of an Islamic Terror Connection and anyone with a brain wouldn't rule out the possibility as of yet.

​

Even if you're leaning more to Deep State ties or a potential arms dealer for covert government agencies; these claims have to at minimum rattle your mind.

​

Is this an intentional disinfo campaign? Sure it could be. I wouldn't put that past both the United States Government and the Radical Islamic Group, or their funding nations within the Middle East.

​

Let's say that's the case; what are they distracting you from? It's certainly not being done if Stephen Paddock was just a rich professional gambler who suffered from some sort of mental illness.

​

It's also become clear that Marilou Danley received well over one hundred thousand dollars in cash from Paddock but now the claims are that she had no idea of the events that were going to occur?

​

Yet she accepted and willingly took a flight to receive his cash? She didn't find that odd? The Federal Agencies don't find that odd?

​

What the hell is going on here is the question that millions of Americans are asking themselves right now.

​

Here you have ISIS even referring to Stephen Paddock as <i>”Abu Abdul Bar al-Amriki”</i>, glorifying an American who otherwise would be an infidel to Islam.

​

That's not the <a href="https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/10/05/new-isis-infographic-vegas-shooting-claims-paddock-converted-six-months-ago/">typical stance Radical Islamic groups </a>take when western men and women are responsible for heinous crimes.

​

Yet the special agent in charge of the FBI’s field office in Las Vegas, Aaron Rouse, told reporters, “We have determined, to this point, no connection to an international terrorist group."

​

How the hell did you determine that? What?

​

It just doesn't make sense folks. It doesn't.

​

Don't be a bootlicker or a prawn and accept the words of the agencies which we already know have a long standing history of working with murderers and criminals whilst at the same time covering up the crimes of the elites.

​

I don't accept anything that these agencies say, and in fact I outright do not trust them at all. I can't. How can you?

​

I believe wholeheartedly there are Patriots within these Federal Law Enforcement and Local Law Enforcement agencies who wish to find the truth but they're being silenced by entities which want to politicize this tragedy to push gun control.

​

You could be blind and see that's exactly what's occurring regardless of who's responsible for the travesty of the largest mass shooting in American history.

​

ISIS continued to say that Paddock, specifically answering the call of ISIS caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, conducted the attack after "accurate monitoring of crusaders" in the venue.

​

The "soldier of the caliphate," the communique says, "equipped with machine guns and ammunition" fired on the concert with "600 between killed and wounded until the soldier's ammunition was finished and he became a martyr."

​

"The brother Abu Abdul Barr stationed himself for the invasion on the 32nd floor of a hotel overlooking a concert, and opened fire continuously on the crowds using 23 guns and more than 2,000 rounds, and died, may Allah accept him, after exhausting his ammunition," al-Naba wrote.

​

The releases from al-Naba have thus far been correct; as when back in June they printed that another attack in Britain was in their words <i>”definitely coming”</i> just two days before the London Bridge Attack.

​

Why would we rule this out then knowing their historically factual claims of the attacks.

​

With so much of a mystery surrounding the life of Stephen Paddock and the suspicious behavior of his actions and even his family members such as his father who once was a historic bank robber and his own brother whom is creep at best why would we halt any inquiries into his connections?

​