G4S, the world’s largest security firm, recently announced it was winding down its Israel and West Bank operations.
ed note–G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one, as has been incorrectly claimed by some trying to draw a link between Mateen and the Jewish state as if the massacre in Orlando was a ‘Mossad’ op.
Nevertheless, despite the fact there is no clear line between Mateen and Israel, this does not mean there is no connection between his actions and powerful individuals/institutions who have a vested interest in what he did. G4S, just like other ‘security’ related groups such as Blackwater, are nests of former military (usually special forces who engage in assassinations and other ‘irregular’ ops) and intel people. Every individual who applies to such a group for employment is immediately vetted not only for the stated purposes of said security group, but also for other tasks that might wind up being ‘off the books’ and which would fall outside the normal parameters of said security group’s offered services.
In short, powerful individuals/groups wanting to see a Trump presidency might be more favorable towards utilizing a group such as G4S as a source in finding operatives tasked with carrying out events such as what took place in Orlando as opposed to more ‘conventional’ channels such as the CIA, given its higher profile, the fact that it is more scrutinized and in the limelight, to say nothing of the fact that it is pock-marked with pro-Israel operatives who–if they got wind that operations such as what took place in Orlando were in the works–might blow the whole thing wide open in order to prevent them.
Haaretz
News that a G4S employee was the gunman who killed 50 people at a packed gay nightclub in Florida wiped almost $282.80 million off the value of the world’s largest security firm.
Omar Mateen, 29, a Florida resident and U.S. citizen, had undergone company screening as recently as 2013 with “no findings,” his Britain-headquartered employer G4S said on Sunday.
G4S recently announced that it was winding down its operations in Israel and the occupied West Bank. It insisted that the move was due to financial issues and denied that the move was related to its being targeted by anti-Israel campaigners.
Some pro-Israel organizations responded by threatening to scrap contracts with G4S if it did not stay in the Jewish state.
When trading opened in London on Monday, shares in G4S lost 6.6 percent to 175 pence to hit their lowest level since 2009.
An analyst who declined to be named said the incident could cause more damage to G4S after a long line of issues.
“It doesn’t help having their name in the press against something like that,” the analyst said.
Mateen was employed at a gated retirement community in South Florida. He underwent two instances of company screening and background checks – once when he was hired in 2007, and again in 2013. At that time, the company learned that Mateen had been questioned by the FBI but that the inquiries were then closed.
G4S has a checkered recent history after it failed to provide enough guards for the London Olympics in 2012, was then involved in a tagging fiasco the following year, and earlier this year took a 65 million pound charge on loss-making British government contracts.
6 thoughts on “Orlando Shooter Worked for Security Firm Embroiled in Israel Controversy”
That Orlando “massacre” of queers was a fake. Read to Mike King about the issue. I think Mike has reason in his opinion that worst things, false flags, etc. are prepared by the yids and are soon coming tu all us.
Most likely a false flag to add more gun control and to push forth the Israeli agenda in the Middle East.
Hmmm
You directly contradict your own conclusions here:.
First you present the fact that G4S has been working directly with the Mossad (by definition any paramilitary/security operations conducted in Israel and the West Bank are done in conjunction with the IDF and Mossad – this is common sense)
“G4S, the world’s largest security firm, recently announced it was winding down its Israel and West Bank operations.”
And then you try to claim that there is no link between the “Jewish State” and G4S. When the fact that there is a direct link is well established fact that G4S has been working directly with the Israelis for years.
“G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one, as has been incorrectly claimed by some trying to draw a link between Mateen and the Jewish state as if the massacre in Orlando was a ‘Mossad’ op.”
The bottom line here is that this man was a wet work merc who has among other assignments done contract work for the Mossad in Israel. Somehow or another I highly doubt that “the Jewish State” would have allowed a Radical Muslim mercenary to work in a “security” capacity within Israeli or the West Bank. It is looking more and more like just one more Israeli false flag.
Question: As a group, the Jewish community which has a higher than normal gay population, and is quite large in Florida, – How many Jews were killed by this Muslim Terrorist in Orlanda?
ed note–hmmmmm, well let’s see now, what was it exactly that was said here–
‘G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one, as has been incorrectly claimed by some trying to draw a link between Mateen and the Jewish state as if the massacre in Orlando was a ‘Mossad’ op’.
I did not say that GS4 does not work with Mossad, what I said is that it is not an Israeli-owned company, as some have incorrectly stated.
So what this boils down to, hmmmm, once again,hmmmmmm, is people visiting this website, and hmmmmmm, not reading carefully, then, hmmmmm, running their mouths off before engaging their brains, hmmmmmm, and in the process, hmmmmmmm, making fools of themselves.
Many people think and I do the same, that all these False Flags are Judaic in nature no matter how people try to defend the Mossad.
ed note–no one, and especially not here, is trying to ‘defend the Mossad’. What we are doing–in the interests of maintaining our credibility–is making sure that we get our facts straight so as not to make fools of ourselves when we go out there in the court of public opinion and argue the case, no different than were we to correct someone’s assertion that Israel deliberately sunk the USS LIBERTY on June 8, 1967 when in fact the ship did not sink. ‘RSM’ as we like to say here–Real Simple Math.
Hmmm
Here is the entire quote in question with the offending portion in parenthesis:
“G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one, ( as has been incorrectly claimed by some trying to draw a link between Mateen and the Jewish state as if the massacre in Orlando was a ‘Mossad’ op.” )
You are specifically and directly denying any link between the shooter, the “Jewish State” and the Mossad and Orlando. Don’t bother with the semantics argument, it doesn’t hold water. It is a well known fact (which you so obligingly had just pointed out) that GS4 has a long and intimate working relationship with Israel, it’s intelligence services and the Mossad. And it is a fact that Mateen was in the employ of GS4. Simply put, there is such a well defined link between Mateen/Orlando and GS4 and “the Jewish State”/ “Mossad” that one would have to be deaf dumb and blind, or a bald face liar to state otherwise.
Your article is master peace in misdirection and deflection. You made the mistake of letting your own stated facts contradict one of your conclusions. That is your fault, not mine. All I did was call you out. If anyone is running off at the mouth off fella it is you. I never stated that GS4 is an “israeli” owned company. What I said was that GS4 has been working with Israel for years. Your attempts to inject a straw man argument in your “rebuttal” leave no doubt you have no legitimate rebuttal at all.
Israel may not be guilty, but so far there is compelling evidence that they were involved.
This is one fool that unsubscribed.
ed note–amazing. Even when quoting it yourself, you still can’t seem to do the ‘math’ on it.
So, we’ll try it again, really, really, slow…
G4S IS A BRITISH SECURITY GROUP, NOT AN ISRAELI ONE.
In English grammer, this is what’s known as the ‘primary clause’ or sometimes as the ‘independent clause’, which contains the ‘meat and potatoes’–meaning the main thesis or idea that the speaker/writer wishes to convey–and which represents a completed thought. What follows is what’s known as a ‘subordinate clause’ or sometimes a ‘dependent clause’ in that it cannot stand alone and does not represent a complete thought or thesis.
In other words, as it relates to this particular discussion, the main thrust of the statement was exactly word-for-word what appeared in my commentary, to wit–
‘G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one’.
Nowhere was it intimated, sneezed, coughed, burped, or hiccuped that Mossad was not involved (not that I at this point believe she was) and the only reason Mossad got the mention it did was to give further clarification as to why this distinction needed to be made, given that there were some out there allowing themselves to get ‘caught up in the moment’ and were passing along fallacious disinformation that G4S was an ‘Israeli’ company when in fact it is not Israeli at all, but rather British.
Unfortunately however, facts such as those pointed out in my commentary don’t mean anything to certain types in this ‘movement’ who have an appetite for sensationalism and who write the ending of the story first and then assemble the scenery in such a way that it completes a pre-determined picture they have formed in their minds, to the obvious discredit to those of us who do care enough about all of this to make sure that indeed the ‘math’ on all of it is as accurate as can be.
Unsubscribe? Quelle Dommage. We’ll certainly miss your ‘Judaism isn’t Zionism’ bs that is just as poorly thought-out and poorly argued as was your position in this little drama.
And while we are pointing out obvious contradictions here, let’s just consider this whopper from you that pretty much ‘seals the deal’ in terms of just who is out to lunch in this little debate–
‘Israel may not be guilty, but so far there is compelling evidence that they were involved.’
So, in other words, Israel was ‘involved’–using your words, in the murder of 50 people and the attempted murder of 50+ more, but she ‘may not be guilty’?
Yeah, I can see why you are so confident of your abilities as a polemicist and geo-political analyst.
‘later, alligator.
Who are the Brits that own or CEO G4S Co? they could very well be British jews like Cameron, Miliband for ex who pass themselves off as purely jews when the unstated part is that they are British zionists. Possible?
That Orlando “massacre” of queers was a fake. Read to Mike King about the issue. I think Mike has reason in his opinion that worst things, false flags, etc. are prepared by the yids and are soon coming tu all us.
Most likely a false flag to add more gun control and to push forth the Israeli agenda in the Middle East.
Hmmm
You directly contradict your own conclusions here:.
First you present the fact that G4S has been working directly with the Mossad (by definition any paramilitary/security operations conducted in Israel and the West Bank are done in conjunction with the IDF and Mossad – this is common sense)
“G4S, the world’s largest security firm, recently announced it was winding down its Israel and West Bank operations.”
And then you try to claim that there is no link between the “Jewish State” and G4S. When the fact that there is a direct link is well established fact that G4S has been working directly with the Israelis for years.
“G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one, as has been incorrectly claimed by some trying to draw a link between Mateen and the Jewish state as if the massacre in Orlando was a ‘Mossad’ op.”
The bottom line here is that this man was a wet work merc who has among other assignments done contract work for the Mossad in Israel. Somehow or another I highly doubt that “the Jewish State” would have allowed a Radical Muslim mercenary to work in a “security” capacity within Israeli or the West Bank. It is looking more and more like just one more Israeli false flag.
Question: As a group, the Jewish community which has a higher than normal gay population, and is quite large in Florida, – How many Jews were killed by this Muslim Terrorist in Orlanda?
ed note–hmmmmm, well let’s see now, what was it exactly that was said here–
‘G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one, as has been incorrectly claimed by some trying to draw a link between Mateen and the Jewish state as if the massacre in Orlando was a ‘Mossad’ op’.
I did not say that GS4 does not work with Mossad, what I said is that it is not an Israeli-owned company, as some have incorrectly stated.
So what this boils down to, hmmmm, once again,hmmmmmm, is people visiting this website, and hmmmmmm, not reading carefully, then, hmmmmm, running their mouths off before engaging their brains, hmmmmmm, and in the process, hmmmmmmm, making fools of themselves.
Many people think and I do the same, that all these False Flags are Judaic in nature no matter how people try to defend the Mossad.
ed note–no one, and especially not here, is trying to ‘defend the Mossad’. What we are doing–in the interests of maintaining our credibility–is making sure that we get our facts straight so as not to make fools of ourselves when we go out there in the court of public opinion and argue the case, no different than were we to correct someone’s assertion that Israel deliberately sunk the USS LIBERTY on June 8, 1967 when in fact the ship did not sink. ‘RSM’ as we like to say here–Real Simple Math.
Hmmm
Here is the entire quote in question with the offending portion in parenthesis:
“G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one, ( as has been incorrectly claimed by some trying to draw a link between Mateen and the Jewish state as if the massacre in Orlando was a ‘Mossad’ op.” )
You are specifically and directly denying any link between the shooter, the “Jewish State” and the Mossad and Orlando. Don’t bother with the semantics argument, it doesn’t hold water. It is a well known fact (which you so obligingly had just pointed out) that GS4 has a long and intimate working relationship with Israel, it’s intelligence services and the Mossad. And it is a fact that Mateen was in the employ of GS4. Simply put, there is such a well defined link between Mateen/Orlando and GS4 and “the Jewish State”/ “Mossad” that one would have to be deaf dumb and blind, or a bald face liar to state otherwise.
Your article is master peace in misdirection and deflection. You made the mistake of letting your own stated facts contradict one of your conclusions. That is your fault, not mine. All I did was call you out. If anyone is running off at the mouth off fella it is you. I never stated that GS4 is an “israeli” owned company. What I said was that GS4 has been working with Israel for years. Your attempts to inject a straw man argument in your “rebuttal” leave no doubt you have no legitimate rebuttal at all.
Israel may not be guilty, but so far there is compelling evidence that they were involved.
This is one fool that unsubscribed.
ed note–amazing. Even when quoting it yourself, you still can’t seem to do the ‘math’ on it.
So, we’ll try it again, really, really, slow…
G4S IS A BRITISH SECURITY GROUP, NOT AN ISRAELI ONE.
In English grammer, this is what’s known as the ‘primary clause’ or sometimes as the ‘independent clause’, which contains the ‘meat and potatoes’–meaning the main thesis or idea that the speaker/writer wishes to convey–and which represents a completed thought. What follows is what’s known as a ‘subordinate clause’ or sometimes a ‘dependent clause’ in that it cannot stand alone and does not represent a complete thought or thesis.
In other words, as it relates to this particular discussion, the main thrust of the statement was exactly word-for-word what appeared in my commentary, to wit–
‘G4S is a British security group, not an Israeli one’.
Nowhere was it intimated, sneezed, coughed, burped, or hiccuped that Mossad was not involved (not that I at this point believe she was) and the only reason Mossad got the mention it did was to give further clarification as to why this distinction needed to be made, given that there were some out there allowing themselves to get ‘caught up in the moment’ and were passing along fallacious disinformation that G4S was an ‘Israeli’ company when in fact it is not Israeli at all, but rather British.
Unfortunately however, facts such as those pointed out in my commentary don’t mean anything to certain types in this ‘movement’ who have an appetite for sensationalism and who write the ending of the story first and then assemble the scenery in such a way that it completes a pre-determined picture they have formed in their minds, to the obvious discredit to those of us who do care enough about all of this to make sure that indeed the ‘math’ on all of it is as accurate as can be.
Unsubscribe? Quelle Dommage. We’ll certainly miss your ‘Judaism isn’t Zionism’ bs that is just as poorly thought-out and poorly argued as was your position in this little drama.
And while we are pointing out obvious contradictions here, let’s just consider this whopper from you that pretty much ‘seals the deal’ in terms of just who is out to lunch in this little debate–
‘Israel may not be guilty, but so far there is compelling evidence that they were involved.’
So, in other words, Israel was ‘involved’–using your words, in the murder of 50 people and the attempted murder of 50+ more, but she ‘may not be guilty’?
Yeah, I can see why you are so confident of your abilities as a polemicist and geo-political analyst.
‘later, alligator.
Who are the Brits that own or CEO G4S Co? they could very well be British jews like Cameron, Miliband for ex who pass themselves off as purely jews when the unstated part is that they are British zionists. Possible?