pap

To be fair, CB, I enjoyed your character assassination more than Verbal's. you've obviously got a joke book on that grassy knoll. Good work!

I'm glad you've chosen this point to bail, Verbal, for your sake as well as mine. My personal view is that you were disappointing. Can't fault you for "post length", but you began this week mocking the Anonymous post from 4chan (4/5 claims now true), which you've now ignored, because it is inconvenient. Your interactions with me have been p!ss-poor. It amuses me that you think Frank's cousin could do with an edit. Jeez, if we took out the strawman, the insults and the attempted marginalization from your posts, we'd have f**k all left. Maybe something about Columbine? Have fun.

Given your apparent interest and expertise in the trauma stuff, I was rather hoping that you'd offer a view on the medical opinions offered up. Never mind. I think I understand your first response better now.

VW, you were interested in the medical angle. Ottawa too probs. Do you think this guy is legit? http://buelahman.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/are-you-just-a-believer-or-do-you-think/

Well aware of Carlos' past as an anti-war campaigner. It has been weighed in, and yes, it does give me pause. Still seems weird, like he's waiting for a nod.

You're right. I don't know much about traumatic injuries, but there are a couple of accounts from EMTs that posit similar concerns .One points to the even skin tone in the picture you reference - apparently not consistent with the blood loss he would have endured. Perhaps Ottawa would be good enough to give a view.

C'mon. Guy has just had his legs blown off. No spatter on the people next to him. Not a visible scratch on anyone in the photos save the man himself. No blood, anywhere. Even the ragged fellow in frame in the first two frames has no blood on him. Yes, it appears in later photos ( and we'll get to those ) - but it is entirely absent here. The force of the explosion would have thrown blood outward immediately, certainly enough to be visible over what is seconds of footage. There's nothing. So let's look a photo with blood. Purposefully linked instead of embedded. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/16/article-2309545-1950CDAB000005DC-672_964x494.jpg Same scene, a little later on, from a different angle. You're right. There's blood there - but this whole photo seems off. Hooded sunglasses bloke has left Jeff Bauman propped up against the black lady and is laying across a different body. That's weird. Who'd leave a bloke who'd just lost both his legs? Carlos Arrendondo, later depicted in wheeling Jeff out on a chair, is standing on the side waving a flag. Dudes are just standing there or talking to each other instead attending to the injured. Lacks urgency to me.

Yes I have been looking at photos online! I have, however, been a little more discerning about my process. Speaking of the guy who had his legs blown off, take a look at this frame by frame shot of events just after the explosion. http://imgur.com/a/9MPLT The link does contain some graphic images, but there is no blood. What I find strange about is that every frame contains the gentleman who reportedly had his legs blown off. Like I said, no blood. Check it out, and give me an honest appraisal.

Hi Verbal. First of all, congratulations for not setting up quite as many strawmen in this post. Both of us are putting forward theories here. Your Columbine comparison is more palatable, but at this stage, no more proven. Your point? Let's go for the next one. Anyone with common sense can see that the brothers were responsible. I can certainly accept that anyone looking for easy answers will reach that conclusion, but common sense? Would you like to tell me how this applies here? It's not an argument. It's an attempt to marginalise a poster by implying that he lacks common sense for the opinions he or she holds. All the other events you mention are as yet, unproven in a court of law. I doubt they ever will be. Might have escaped the easily impressed on here, but almost your entire post is "nutter by association". I'm less impressed, but let's not fall out over it.

Well, flattering as it is to be referred to as the sole source of all conspiracy related material, I can't really claim that honour. Going from the photos, there is a much better fit for the bomber than the Tsaraevs. If pushed, I'd be more interested in the military types. A few reasons. First, they are near the first bomb site. Second, one is wearing a rucksack which is very similar to one of the post exploded bombs. In a post bombing-shot, he is sans rucksack. Verbal had a laugh over the Craft International link. Midweek, these people didn't exist. By the end of the week, they did exist, but most definitely were not Craft International, but apparently the world's worst counter-terrorism squad. On that note, 4 of the 5 predictions from the anonymous source that was mocked on here have now come true. Friday capture, check. Man in late teens early 20s. Check. Reloading powder? Check. Bill to limit sale of such powder? Why, it was proposed on Friday! http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-to-propose-bill-regulating-black-power-wake-of-boston-massacre

I already said the relative's claims were not proof. The younger brother being captured can work on a number of levels, but my personal opinion is they never intended to catch him alive. As I said in my earlier post, all indications were that this chap was going down in a blaze of glory. According to reports, he is in a stable but serious condition. Quite how this segues with him walking off the boat under his own power, I don't know. You keep making these absolute statements about nothing pointing to a setup. I've been good enough to answer your questions honestly. Perhaps you'll reciprocate. Have you even looked?

Sorry aintforever, but this post fails to deal with any of the issues I raised. Three of their relatives claim they were set up. There's presently no proof of that, but the narrative on Friday fits their claims. They were guilty as soon as their names were read out. Simple as. Every media outlet went with that as a point of truth. Some even went as far to suggest that the younger brother we going to go out in a blaze of glory. If you have been set up, and you know you have been set up - why on Earth would you go to a nick? We still don't know how the elder brother was killed. Some reports say he died in a shoot out. Others say his own brother ran him over with a car. There is a glut of evidence out there. How have you determined that there is none? Same question for motive really. I don't get how you can confidently assert that there was none of either.

Good share, btf. When I linked the article on S1867, characterised as a harmless finance bill by buctootim. I don't think he got as far as Section 1031, which deals with detention of people without trial. Essentially, the "covered persons" seems to be anyone in the world, as long as the US deems them a terrorist. Interesting to see the article mention state-sponsored assassinations. I brought that up on here at the time, but apparently it was okay, because these people were terrorists; the US said so. What really worries me is the complete loss of rights as soon as someone is accused of terrorism. Anti-terror laws have already been abused in this country.

If that's your only criticism I suggest you conduct your own research. There is plenty more out there about WTC '93, and it fits a general pattern of FBI involvement in terrorist plots. The general point being made is that the FBI are proven to handle so-called terrorists, and have purposefully allowed plots to continue. In many of these cases, the FBI have taken the lead, solving problems for the would-be madman. Tsardeav's mother claimed that her eldest son had contact with the FBI and that they knew exactly what he was doing. The US have had to admit that they did meet the elder brother, but in 2011 and at the request of a foreign government.

Most Southampton families will have strong memories of Bournemouth from beach days. Good to see Championship football in the town. Tink they may surprise a few people.

WTC 93. Fill your boots. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

I'll dig it the link out, Lord D. Only have satellite Internet at tho mo. In the meantime, this is a good piece from a former FBI agent on the practice. http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/15/manufacturing-terrorists

Can't remember the exact figures, but something like a 3rd of all US terrorist cases involve an agent provocateur from the FBI egging them on. The WTC bombings of '93 are on record as an FBI op gone wrong.

I used the term "set on" to refer the the pre-detainment activities of the police, not what happened once they got him. While I appreciate your insight into due process, that is not what happened here. These people were guilty on Friday, irrespective of any other evidence that the FBI might have seen.

Actually, eventually, they do - at least in cases which are not related to terrorism. How do I know they don't have more on them? They almost certainly do. It still doesn't justify the spectacle of the manhunt we witnessed the other day. I say again, one 19 year old man on the run. Did Boston really need to be locked down for that? The media went out of their way to turn this entire story into a world event. However, the fact that there is no slam dunk evidence for the public speaks volumes, as does the abandonment of due process. No proof, no charges and no trial.

You should probably look into the way the FBI catches terrorists. A good deal of it is entrapment.

Evidence is normally how you establish guilt, yes. If you're happy with the idea that someone can come along and say "JustMike is a terrorist" and then set the authorities on you, fair play to you. The police have shown nothing else that implicates them in the bombing, and the suspect has not been charged.

We may speak the same language, but a lot of the similarities end there. First off, with a few notable exceptions such as NI, we're not big on nationalism. Paxman reckons that one of the most distinguishing features of the English is the lack of overt nationalism. We are quietly confident in our identity and aware of our place in this world. Could never imagine that sort of spectacle happening here.

Again, where's the proof?