Bomb in Boston

[hypochondriac]

Still not answering the points. Actually just doing the equivalent of running away. I thought verbal's post was pretty informative and provided a balanced critique of the issues.

Edited 20 April, 2013 by hypochondriac

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I think so too. He should pay his fiver and get fully onboard.

 

No matter who was responsible for this, some massive precedent has just been set in the USA. Martial law in all but name in Boston, just for the manhunt of a 19 year old man. It's undoubtedly good telly, but it doesn't look much like due process. People are being prosecuted by the media, their actions pre-empted.

 

I've posted a couple of things:-

 

Video of the cameraman getting straight to the aftermath of the explosion, and there being very few people there, . I don't see anything like 170 people there, but that doesn't fit the narrative, so it's excluded. Par for the course.

 

Video of suspect's aunt - thought an alternative perspective was warranted after seeing the uncle plastered over BBC news for around three hours straight. We've got two relatives of equal import; one sticking up for her nephews and suggesting they've been framed, another looking like he's reading from the script ( half "they're f**king guilty, half "Come to the USA, it's nice" ). He hasn't seen them in eight years, says that they were kids the last time he saw them, yet is fit to pronounce judgment on their personalities. Fair enough; the man has his opinion - but so did the aunt, and so did the mother. They did not appear on the news for 3 hours straight because they didn't fit the narrative.

 

The narrative is perhaps felt most strongly in the aunt video. Talk about leading questions:-

 

Questioner 1: "So are you suspicious that they really did do this?"

A: "No, I am suspicious that this was staged. The picture was staged"

Questioner 2: "By who?"

A: "Whoever needs this. Whoever is looking for ... those who need to be blamed for ... these acts"

Questioner 1: "So you think they're being set up by someone else, not the authorities, by someone else?"

A: "What do you mean, someone else? Who is interested in this case? When you blowing up people and you want to bring attention to something, for some purpose, you know, you do that [maths], but why don't you do that math, why me? I am used to being set up. Before I left ... er .. former Soviet Union countries, that's how I lived. Always."

 

 

I think I'll reserve the right to wait and see on the Craft International angle.

 

I think it is marvellous that Verbal is back not because he bashed you but because he enhances the quality of debate on the lounge. If you are Rick Astley then he is Bono.

 

I think he is guilty of being a little paranoid thinking that conspiracy theories are somehow the tool of the right to stir up hatred. When you have millions and millions of people then you will inevitably have different viewpoints from those that look at events from a different angle and those that wish to attract attention. Conspiracy theories are generally quite interesting and thought provoking - taking the official line is rather North Korean.

 

You are wrong because you are unable to differentiate between Martial law used to suppress the people and Martial Law used to protect the people. Measures taken by the Government would more than likely have been supported by everyone in Boston.

 

I have been a bit hard. I generally enjoy your take on life even if I normally disagree with it.

Edited 20 April, 2013 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[pap]

Still not answering the points. Actually just doing the equivalent of running away. I thought verbal's post was pretty informative and provided a balanced critique of the issues.

 

I'm not going to respond to points I've not made.

 

Also, I do find the accusation of running away being a bit of a laugh, hypo. You are an anonymous user, are you not?

[pap]

I think it is marvellous that Verbal is back not because he bashed you but because he enhances the quality of debate on the lounge. If you are Rick Astley then he is Bono.

 

I think he is guilty of being a little paranoid thinking that conspiracy theories are somehow the tool of the right to stir up hatred. When you have millions and millions of people then you will inevitably have different viewpoints from those that look at events from a different angle and those that wish to attract attention. Conspiracy theories are generally quite interesting and thought provoking - taking the official line is rather North Korean.

 

You are wrong because you are unable to differentiate between Martial law used to suppress the people and Martial Law used to protect the people. Measures taken by the Government would more than likely have been supported by everyone in Boston.

 

May I congratulate you on an accommodating post, Sergei. And may I also say that while I might not agree with the specifics of your Rick Astley / Bono analogy, it did amuse me.

 

As I said before, it was martial law in all but name. In a sense, that's a little more worrying - because you had effective martial law without any formal declaration ( "lockdown" the preferred term ). The Americans have done a lot of the things Orwell warned us about, subtly mutating language to dispense themselves with the conventions they'd usually have to follow. A prime example of this is "enemy combatants" over "prisoners of war". The latter have international rights, the former do not. Sometimes, you wonder whether it was a good idea for our language to be so nuanced.

 

We might have to agree to differ on the martial law issue. I'm sure that when it has happened in the past, people have been told it is for their own protection. It's an old trick and a slippery slope,imo.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

May I congratulate you on an accommodating post, Sergei. And may I also say that while I might not agree with the specifics of your Rick Astley / Bono analogy, it did amuse me.

 

As I said before, it was martial law in all but name. In a sense, that's a little more worrying - because you had effective martial law without any formal declaration ( "lockdown" the preferred term ). The Americans have done a lot of the things Orwell warned us about, subtly mutating language to dispense themselves with the conventions they'd usually have to follow. A prime example of this is "enemy combatants" over "prisoners of war". The latter have international rights, the former do not. Sometimes, you wonder whether it was a good idea for our language to be so nuanced.

 

We might have to agree to differ on the martial law issue. I'm sure that when it has happened in the past, people have been told it is for their own protection. It's an old trick and a slippery slope,imo.

 

How can you compare the measures taken to capture a fugitive to martial law being used by one party states?

[Horley CTFC Saint]

What's the point?

I won't be drawn into it.

 

 

One post left. Horley is 0/3 on points, with one possible point to play for. Can Horley make that point?

I'LL nOt be dRawn on This.............can you see what it is yet

[pap]

How can you compare the measures taken to capture a fugitive to martial law being used by one party states?

 

It's difficult. A bit like comparing the unremarked capture of an individual, which seems to happen day-to-day, with this lockdown brought on by a 19 year old man.

[hypochondriac]

It's difficult. A bit like comparing the unremarked capture of an individual, which seems to happen day-to-day, with this lockdown brought on by a 19 year old man.

 

How many of these individuals have been involved in a massively high profile bombing and then involved in shootouts? Most 19 year olds don't cause districts to be shut down but then most 19 year olds don't put nails and ball bearings in pressure cookers and make them explode.

Edited 20 April, 2013 by hypochondriac

[pap]

How many of these individuals have been involved in a massively high profile bombing and then involved in shootouts?

 

So far, I haven't seen a single bit of proof that this guy has either. Where is the evidence that he was involved in the bombing?

[hypochondriac]

So far, I haven't seen a single bit of proof that this guy has either. Where is the evidence that he was involved in the bombing?

 

So why would an innocent 19 year old who just happened to be at the marathon then run from the police and be found hiding in a boat? Even if we can believe that they were set up with the bombs, (what about the victim who identified him Btw?) who killed the policeman and injured the other one? The fbi? Is that what you are saying?

[pap]

So why would an innocent 19 year old who just happened to be at the marathon then run from the police and be found hiding in a boat? Even if we can believe that they were set up with the bombs, (what about the victim who identified him Btw?) who killed the policeman and injured the other one? The fbi? Is that what you are saying?

 

We're told that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his 26 year old brother set the bombs. The only proof the authorities offered up of their complicity in the bombing was video of them walking near the bomb site.

 

One of the brothers is now dead, the other has not been read his miranda warning. He hasn't even been charged with anything. Now that may be just be temporary - officials are allowed to question suspects pre-Miranda if there is an ongoing further threat that they feel the suspect can help them with. Personally, I suspect they're looking to avoid a jury trial at all costs; he'll end up with the same status as Guantanamo Bay inmates.

 

As for the brothers' flight; you're right - could easily be a sign of their guilt. If they were set up, as their aunt and mother suggest, then they could also have legitimately ran in fear of their lives.

[Cascadia Saint]

As for the brothers' flight; you're right - could easily be a sign of their guilt. If they were set up, as their aunt and mother suggest, then they could also have legitimately ran in fear of their lives.

 

Legitimately lobbing homemade grenades at police from their legitimately carjacked vehicle...

[pap]

Legitimately lobbing homemade grenades at police from their legitimately carjacked vehicle...

 

Again, where's the proof?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've just seen TV pictures of the hysterical reaction on the streets of Boston to the end of this manhunt - overexcited people jumping up and down shouting USA! USA! as if they'd just won a war. The British reputation for understatement and reserve may be something of a outdated national stereotype in this day and age, but I still would hope that in a similiar situation we would react in a more dignified manner.

 

Meanwhile 200+ people are killed in a Chinese earthquake and yet this tragic story is only placed in second place on the BBC news running order ...

[for_heaven's_Saint]

I've just seen TV pictures of the hysterical reaction on the streets of Boston to the end of this manhunt - overexcited people jumping up and down shouting USA! USA! as if they'd just won a war. The British reputation for understatement and reserve may be something of a outdated national stereotype in this day and age, but I still would hope that in a similiar situation we would react in a more dignified manner.

 

Indeed, watching that makes me want it to all be a conspiracy! They have such a bizzare view of their own country, which is undoubtedly a view cultivated by the media over decades.

[pap]

I've just seen TV pictures of the hysterical reaction on the streets of Boston to the end of this manhunt - overexcited people jumping up and down shouting USA! USA! as if they'd just won a war. The British reputation for understatement and reserve may be something of a outdated national stereotype in this day and age, but I still would hope that in a similiar situation we would react in a more dignified manner.

 

Meanwhile 200+ people are killed in a Chinese earthquake and yet this tragic story is only placed in second place on the BBC news running order ...

 

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.

[hypochondriac]

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.

 

Yes I agree. Celebrating the death of anyone is extremely distasteful but that is just what some Americans are like. I think they see it all as a game.

[Jonnyboy]

All my life, panic in America.

[JustMike]

We're told that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his 26 year old brother set the bombs. The only proof the authorities offered up of their complicity in the bombing was video of them walking near the bomb site.

 

One of the brothers is now dead, the other has not been read his miranda warning. He hasn't even been charged with anything. Now that may be just be temporary - officials are allowed to question suspects pre-Miranda if there is an ongoing further threat that they feel the suspect can help them with. Personally, I suspect they're looking to avoid a jury trial at all costs; he'll end up with the same status as Guantanamo Bay inmates.

 

As for the brothers' flight; you're right - could easily be a sign of their guilt. If they were set up, as their aunt and mother suggest, then they could also have legitimately ran in fear of their lives.

 

Like the police / FBI have to reveal all their evidence to us? There would have been more to it than just walking near the site!

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yes I agree. Celebrating the death of anyone is extremely distasteful but that is just what some Americans are like. I think they see it all as a game.

 

Some Brits are like it as well, but it's ok to celebrate if it's political.

 

There are idiots in America, just as there are idiots in the UK.

 

I lived and worked amongst them for a few years and they are kind generous and ordinary, like most Brits are.

 

Anyone who thinks these brothers were set up is deluded or on a wind up.

[pap]

Like the police / FBI have to reveal all their evidence to us? There would have been more to it than just walking near the site!

 

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.

[JustMike]

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.

 

But they dont have to reveal all to the public...that's what im saying! How do you know they haven't got more on them?

[pap]

Some Brits are like it as well, but it's ok to celebrate if it's political.

 

There are idiots in America, just as there are idiots in the UK.

 

I lived and worked amongst them for a few years and they are kind generous and ordinary, like most Brits are.

 

Anyone who thinks these brothers were set up is deluded or on a wind up.

 

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

[pap]

But they dont have to reveal all to the public...that's what im saying! How do you know they haven't got more on them?

 

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.

[JustMike]

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.

 

Yes, eventually. I can understand why they locked down Boston, preventing anyone coming or going. How did the authorities know that there weren't any more devices? Or more people involved? World event? Yes! The bombing itself turned it into one. No proof? There must be some else they wouldnt have been after them, no charges...yet!

[CB Saint]

Pap, you may or may not be paranoid, but you certainly lack perspective, and you're also prone to naivete. The '19-year-old bloke' you refer will go on trial, at the very least, for the murder of an eight-year-old boy and the terrible maiming of his sister, his mother, and many other bystanders whose extremities were ripped to pieces by IEDs filled with the kind of shrapnel with one sole intention: to cause as much pain and human misery as possible. This '19-year-old bloke' will also, no doubt, go on trial for his alleged part in the murder of a young campus cop, apparently shot in cold blood as he sat in his car, and the wounding of a transit cop in a ferocious firefight that included the hurling of IEDs and grenades from the car.

 

Your naivete, it seems to me, stems from two things: your hopeless belief that the world is binary - filled, on the one hand, by those who typically reject the wilder fantasies of conspiracy theorists, and who are, ipso facto, unquestioning champions of the goodness of governments, while the fantasists themselves are accorded a privileged status of 'evidence' and 'truth' precisely because of their fantasies; the other, rather more curious, naivete is that you, as an avowed left-of-centre individual, are signing up to conspiracy theories advanced by a viscerally right-wing, paranoid and in some cases racist fringe in American politics - the kind of fringe that denies 9/11 principally on the grounds that dumb Arabs could not have committed it, and denies the validity of Obama's presidency because he is a Marxist, Muslim fundamentalist foreigner, or, in short, Black.

 

Your endorsement of the claims in the article on the 'Craft' is a model of naive nonsense. By endorsing it, you presumably endorse its specific claims - notably that 'the media' has 'censored' the presence of privately contracted security, when a much more likely explanation is that it is hardly worthy of mention; and, worse, that the fact that the 'Craft' personnel are carrying rucksacks renders these rucksacks indistinguishable from the ones that contained the IEDs. Or in short: the Craft killed and maimed in the marathon bombings.

 

Remember some of the damage your co-conspiracy theorists have done just in the last few days. Here are a few choice examples.

 

The family of a missing student from Brown University in Rhode Island, Sunil Tripathi, had to take down internet appeals calling for information about his fate, because he was named by

Reddit as the younger of the two bombing suspects.

 

Mike Mulugeta, a young black man, was also named by Reddit as the older of the bombers.

 

A Morrocan-American student, Salah Eddin Barhoum was fingered by Reddit as the 'bag man' of the two bombers. Pictures were posted of him in his distinctly blue tracksuit top, carrying a sports bag across his shoulder. Astonishingly, the Reddit sleuths claimed that other pictures showed Barhoum without his bag - implying that he had planted his bomb - and yet anyone with half-decent eyesight can see the bag's shoulder strap still in place. Barhoum had to run, terrified, to the nearest police station to clear himself.

 

The 'Saudi man'. Actually this was someone injured by the bombers. A false story gained momentum on the internet that he was a suspect, and the fanatical right-winger Glenn Beck took to the airwaves to claim he was being deported. None of this was true.

 

The 'running away man'. Internet sleuths identified a young man, his clothes in shred, running away from one of the bomb scenes - which is, hardly, on the race of it, a surprising thing to do. but the claim was that he was the bomber fleeing. Fortunately no one ever put a name to him, so he has not suffered.

 

The 'roof man.' Photos were latched onto of a man watching the marathon from a rooftop - again, hardly a surprising or even remotely suspicious thing to do. Yet his photo led to speculation that he was the orchestra conductor of the attack.

 

Built into your stance is the assumption that unless the authorities release all and every piece of information that relates to their inquiry, they are somehow part of a massive Matrix-like inter-governmental conspiracy. You will surely have to concede, though, that placing all inquiries leads into the public domain is both absurd and damaging - not least of the principle of jury trials. This does NOT mean that accepting this argument means that you're a kind of sheep-like idiot who believe everything someone in power or authority says. On the contrary, an informed, critical citizenry is a crucial part of modern democracy, and an important bulwark against the abuse of power. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, let those in power off easily because the wilder theorists' claims are for the most part, and for all the appeal to 'evidence', merely falling for a characteristic kind of what psychologists call confirmation bias. They end up in a world of complete, and circular fantasy.

 

So be an informed critic by all means. But don't think the best way of doing that is quoting David ****ing Icke.

 

In the meantime, let's just see how the trial pans out.

 

Blimey, I just agreed with Verbal.

[JackFrost]

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.

 

Welcome to the world of the western police force, and how it has worked for a very long time.

 

A crime takes place, footage is analysed, facts and witness testimonies are gathered, key suspects are identified and eradicated through the process of elimination, and the chief suspect(s) is/are detained and interviewed (or "set on" as you put it) by the police. This process can be repeated many times. During this period the police will continue to search for evidence to link the aforementioned suspects to the crime.

 

I also find it staggering that you're suggesting for one moment the FBI/police should release any evidence for these two brother's guilt into the public domain at this time. I would actually be shocked if they DID. I cannot tell you how many investigations I conducted as a D.I. would have been severely compromised if such a thing had happened.

 

I also think the U.S. authorities' priority over the last week has been to stop any more bombs going off in public places, rather than spend significant resources and money framing 2 brothers who happened to be in the area at the time.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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.

 

You watch too many movies, this is real life not Martin Scorsese's latest block buster.

 

Do you seriously believe that 2 innocent brothers were watching the marathon and then got framed by the FBI. If Just Mike was arrested for being a terriost, I doubt very much that there would be a whole city locked down, I doubt whther grenades would have been thrown, a police officer shot dead and a running gun battle after a car hijacking.

 

If you seriously believe that law enforcement should realise all their evidence to the wider world on day one then you are deluded. I doubt if there's a handful of people in the Western World who think this is a FBI cover up. I think these guys were tracked down and apprehended pretty quickly and I'm sure 99.9% of Bostonians are pleased with the law enforcement agencies quick work. They would have been under incredible pressure and their first priority would have been the safety of ordinary people.

Edited 21 April, 2013 by Lord Duckhunter

[PhilippineSaint]

Pap is not saying the brothers did not do it or that they are being framed just that it is not always cut and dried are there extenuating circumstances? who knows and until then it appears that the person in custody will not be accorded his normal human rights of a lawyer or read his rights as a criminal should be. Which only the government can agree to ?

[Sheaf Saint]

Yes, eventually. I can understand why they locked down Boston, preventing anyone coming or going. How did the authorities know that there weren't any more devices? Or more people involved? World event? Yes! The bombing itself turned it into one. No proof? There must be some else they wouldnt have been after them, no charges...yet!

 

I think you over-estimate the sanity and integrity of the US security forces. There is an excellent article in today's Independent about just this subject...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-boston-bombs-roused-a-monster-8581430.html

 

Criminal investigations have become far more sophisticated. But Epstein's account of the FBI's pursuit of the person responsible for the anthrax attacks in 2001 suggests that this investigation was even more perverted by the need to show results. The anthrax, of a particularly virulent strain, was sent by letter and killed five people. Having decided early on that the sender was a "lone wolf" American scientist, the FBI pursued several scientists who seemed to fit this profile. One, Dr Steven Hatfill, was so closely investigated (the press alerted to the FBI's suspicions), that he lost his job, contracts, and many associates. He sued the government, a federal judge expressing outrage that the FBI had pursued him for five years without "a scintilla of evidence". He was awarded $5.8m in compensation.

 

Undaunted, the FBI went after another scientist, Dr Bruce Ivins, offering $2.5m to his twins to testify against their father. Under pressure, bankrupted by legal fees, drinking heavily and having suffered a mental breakdown, Dr Ivins killed himself in 2008. A week later, the FBI declared Dr Ivins the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks, though its gargantuan investigation had turned up nothing conclusive against him and its presumption of his guilt depended on dubious scientific evidence.

[Picard]

This article in the New York Times gives examples of how the FBI set up people, getting them to be involved in terrorist attacks and then arresting them.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?_r=3&

 

When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.

[pap]

Welcome to the world of the western police force, and how it has worked for a very long time.

 

A crime takes place, footage is analysed, facts and witness testimonies are gathered, key suspects are identified and eradicated through the process of elimination, and the chief suspect(s) is/are detained and interviewed (or "set on" as you put it) by the police. This process can be repeated many times. During this period the police will continue to search for evidence to link the aforementioned suspects to the crime.

 

I also find it staggering that you're suggesting for one moment the FBI/police should release any evidence for these two brother's guilt into the public domain at this time. I would actually be shocked if they DID. I cannot tell you how many investigations I conducted as a D.I. would have been severely compromised if such a thing had happened.

 

I also think the U.S. authorities' priority over the last week has been to stop any more bombs going off in public places, rather than spend significant resources and money framing 2 brothers who happened to be in the area at the time.

 

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.

[pap]

This article in the New York Times gives examples of how the FBI set up people, getting them to be involved in terrorist attacks and then arresting them.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?_r=3&

 

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.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

This article in the New York Times gives examples of how the FBI set up people, getting them to be involved in terrorist attacks and then arresting them.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?_r=3&

 

It probably is immoral, but I'm pretty sure most people who were offered the chance to blow something up would say no.

[pap]

It probably is immoral' date=' but I'm pretty sure most people who were offered the chance to blow something up would say no.[/quote']

 

It wouldn't even enter most people's heads. The FBI pose as supposedly like-minded people, encourage them to commit crimes and then "solve" terrorism cases.

 

I also doubt it's a straight "hey, you want to go blow something up?".

[Lord Duckhunter]

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.

 

If it's on record I'm sure you wouldn't mind posting the official link. Or is "on record" code for someone's opinion in an article?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm sure Pap will be posting that Charles Manson was an FBI agent in a minute.

[pap]

If it's on record I'm sure you wouldn't mind posting the official link. Or is "on record" code for someone's opinion in an article?

 

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

[pap]

If it's on record I'm sure you wouldn't mind posting the official link. Or is "on record" code for someone's opinion in an article?

 

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

[CB Saint]

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

 

Not sure how reliable that article is give that they have had to publish a correction to it

[pap]

Not sure how reliable that article is give that they have had to publish a correction to it

 

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.

[bridge too far]

Intelligent article in the Guardian

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights

[aintforever]

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.

 

If the two brothers were innocent they could and would have just handed themselves in to the nearest Police station. It wouldn't be hard to prove their innocence, they would simply have to turn up with the rucksacks they were carrying that day and show the coppers what was in them and tell them where they were going.

 

There is zero evidence or motive for any bizarre conspiracy in this case.

Edited 21 April, 2013 by aintforever

[pap]

Intelligent article in the Guardian

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights

 

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.

[pap]

If the two brothers were innocent they could and would have just handed themselves in to the nearest Police station. It wouldn't be hard to prove their innocence, they would simply have to turn up with the rucksacks they were carrying that day and show the coppers what was in them and tell them where they were going.

 

There is zero evidence or motive for any bizarre conspiracy in this case.

 

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.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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

 

Your claim was it was "on record" that the bombing was an "FBI plot gone wrong".

 

The link you posted is just more conspiracy nonsense. I suppose it's my fault for taking "on the record" to mean some sort of official enquiry , rather than more pony chucked at American law enforcement.

[JackFrost]

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.

 

That's the world we've lived in since 9/11

[aintforever]

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.

 

Relatives claiming they were set up is not evidence and the police had to publish their pictures because of the nature of the threat. All the hype from the media is just inevitable in the US.

 

How does the younger brother being caught alive fit in with your bizarre conspiracy theory? Surely that is the very last thing they would want if it was some big set up.

 

There is nothing to even hint at a set up.

[pap]

Relatives claiming they were set up is not evidence and the police had to publish their pictures because of the nature of the threat. All the hype from the media is just inevitable in the US.

 

How does the younger brother being caught alive fit in with your bizarre conspiracy theory? Surely that is the very last thing they would want if it was some big set up.

 

There is nothing to even hint at a set up.

 

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?

[aintforever]

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?

 

I have read your posts but see no evidence of some conspiracy. What is the evidence?

 

So far everything I have seen and read fits in with the consensus that two nutjobs set off the bombs and were tracked down and caught/killed by the rozzers.