Show me more proof. (Boston bombings)
- Thread starter saoirse13
- Start date
Technically, they havn't had solid proof of being the bombers (To my knowledge), but when they killed a security guard, shot at police, and threw IEDs at them, well, the confession seems somewhat implicit.
Also, I believe there was a confession that came before interrogation, so...Case seems pretty open and shut.
Also, I believe there was a confession that came before interrogation, so...Case seems pretty open and shut.
I'd have seen a conspiracy had the bombers been Arab. But they were Chechnyan. When they were identified, I actually sed out loud to myself. Chechnyan. It's coincidentally a fun word to say. It's too left-field to actually be some kind of hidden agenda.
My coworker performed an impression of the CIA.
"WHO AUTHORISED THIS?!"
"Sir this wasn't us..."
"You mean it was an actual attack?!"
"Yessir.."
"Well...uh...what do we do now?"
My coworker performed an impression of the CIA.
"WHO AUTHORISED THIS?!"
"Sir this wasn't us..."
"You mean it was an actual attack?!"
"Yessir.."
"Well...uh...what do we do now?"
Well, when the police started tracking them, they shot at them and threw pipe bombs at them. So there's that. We also have a confession. And photo/video evidence of them planting the bombs. What other evidence could you possibly want? Paranoid much?
So you don't find it odd that the bombs they used at the marathon both went off and were quite effective, and out of the bombs they threw at police, perhaps 3 of them, they didn't do any damage to speak of? From what I understand, 2 of them ignited but just popped smoked, they failed to explode. One of the bombs failed to do anything at all because they mention the bomb squad had to come in and deal with it after the shoot out.Carlston said:
So basically 2/2 for where it matters, 0/3 on the run. Would seem to me like somebody else was helping them make the bombs for the marathon.
Don't think they were moving. Too many reports of the dead one trying to charge the police on foot through the smoke after he threw the bombs. There is video of the shootout and at least one has audio decent enough that you can distinguish the pop of at least 2 bombs from the gunshots. The videos for the most part don't show a whole a lot except lights from the cars.LifeCharacter said:
The FBI used an Egyptian ex-military man for a sting of the 1993 World Trade bombers. He recorded all of his phone calls with the FBI and the transcripts are out there. Basically he was helping recruit these guys for the bombing, the explosives were supposed to have been substituted with harmless powder and the terrorists were going to be arrested, no harm done- but that's not how it happened. The point is, the government has a nasty habit of getting handlers to plays both sides to push radicals into action.
Okay reading your question only confused me even more after your edit.
Proof they bombed the marathon? Cops came to get them and they threw bombs at them, and shot at them. I don't know many college students that pack bombs in case cops try and get their stash of cookies or weed.
I'm not sure what events you're stating the government covered up and if you're one of the crazies who subscribes that we never landed on the moon, I'm just not sure how to tell you this but well, we landed there the proof is massive and there's this lunar lander there and all the evidence for not landing there has been pretty well dis-proven by Mythbusters and Penn and Teller.
Proof they bombed the marathon? Cops came to get them and they threw bombs at them, and shot at them. I don't know many college students that pack bombs in case cops try and get their stash of cookies or weed.
I'm not sure what events you're stating the government covered up and if you're one of the crazies who subscribes that we never landed on the moon, I'm just not sure how to tell you this but well, we landed there the proof is massive and there's this lunar lander there and all the evidence for not landing there has been pretty well dis-proven by Mythbusters and Penn and Teller.
Uh, actually multiple bombs failed to explode at the marathon event, so it wasn't 2/2. Additionally, delicate equipment when used in a hurry, often fails. Hell, join the military and you'll see thousands to millions of dollars worth of equipment fail before your eyes on an almost daily basis -all ostensibly well-maintained. Shit breaks in the field; s'fact of life.xDarc said:
The fact is: there's more evidence pointing to the fact that they did it, and no real credible theories to the contrary. Really the only 'x' factor is if they were working alone. Even if they weren't however, it doesn't mean Uncle Sam had shit to do with it.
Maybe it's like Bob said awhile back: Sometimes the belief in order, even evil order, is more comforting than the notion that the universe exists in a state of chaos (paraphrase).
Completely innocent scapegoats, victims of the government, throwing pipe bombs at police. Yeah, definitely sounds reasonable. Those poor boys, just caught at the wrong time in the wrong videos with the wrong backpack and the wrong assault with the wrong guns and bombs against those mean, clearly corrupt police, victims of a cruel and coldly calculating governmental machine.Azaraxzealot said:
I really find it difficult to believe that they were innocent.
As @senordesol pointed out that even high tech military equipment can fail so you can quite easily assume home made crap has a fairly high chance of not working. Home made stuff is usually of a lot lesser quality than things you can buy (unless you're an expert at the task)and considering the bombs that went off only killed 3 people (I know saying only is bad but it could have been a lot worse) at a fairly big public event with plenty of people around would suggest the bombs that went off weren't really that well made to begin with.xDarc said:
Really? well you didn't give them a very good skim, if you refer to pages 51-52 it clearly states the purpose of the report was to document the dissemination of OWS on college campus's. Now to document something is to collect information, as they was doing this without the student protestors being aware, that is spying by definition.NiPah said:
The document also mentions the protestors in numerous articles under the title Domestic Terrorism and states they were discussed by counter terrorism units in briefings. Since this is usually reserved for terrorist units, the FBI treated OWS as terrorists.
Page 68
For a group performing legal dissent this completely heavy handed. The protest were a civil matter and should of been allowed to commence and supervised by the police and stopped if any violence or "disturbances" broke out like in every other country where the protests took place. But we all seen how the NYPD handled things. But maybe that had something to do with this. http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm?TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=850
How can you have multiple bombs that failed to explode? It contradicts there only being 2 bombers with 2 backpacks. We all hear the reports of additional devices and controlled detonations, but officially there were none because it contradicts their story of these two showing up with one backpack each, minutes before the two explosions.senordesol said:
The officials are either lying about additional devices found or there was more to this story.
Janet Napolitano lied to a congressman about the Saudi they deported, saying he didn't exist.
The officials lied about the kid shooting at them from the boat when only later did somebody else leak that there he had no gun.
They lied about a drill taking place that morning.
What else are they lying about? How was the older brother not placed on a terrorist watch list? Why was he allowed to even return to the country after his trip to Dagestan? People have been put on the no fly list for internet postings and this guy is interviewed by the FBI and then allowed to fly to a war zone and back?
The whole thing reaks of one of the FBI's sting operations that went bad.
Not saying there isn't 'more to the story', what I'm saying is inconsistency =/= conspiracy. Again, I contend that they might not have been working alone OR they could have planted additional devices beforehand, with the backpack devices intended to be the main event. We simply don't know.xDarc said:
Also, confusion in a gunfight is so common it may as well be a requirement. Remember: this guy had BLOWN UP a bunch of people, SHOT dead a cop, HIJACKED a car, and tossed BOMBS at pursuers. You don't think the people approaching him might have been a little bit jumpy and, perhaps -in their anxiousness-, made a mistake? A mistake that no one would be quick to admit?
Further, the 'no-fly' list is a fucking joke in and of itself. The fact that the government has to process SO MANY threats, both credible and otherwise, makes the no-fly list so inefficient and ineffective at best; the fact that a couple of college students slipping through the cracks really not so unbelievable.
Government ineptitude is nothing new, watch a couple episodes of 'almost got away with it' and you'll see WANTED FUGITIVES walk right past police officers, get arrested and be processed in POLICE STATIONS and still not get caught. There's a reason the phrase 'good enough for government work' doesn't imply someone has just done a crackerjack job. Even government websites are, by and large, impossible to navigate. Hell, half the time, it's a wonder the government can tie its own shoelaces.
Is there more to the story than just the two brothers? Probably. Does the government lie, obfuscate, and misreport information. Yes. Does that mean the government was the puppet master every step of the way? No.
So doing a quick search for domestic terrorism it was mentioned 6 times in the report based on the following situations:flarty said:
As for the FBI documenting the actions of Occupy Wall Street protesters on college campuses, it's common sense that the government would keep tabs on a movement which has a history of (as documented above) threats of chemical weapons, violent tendencies, gun sales, mailing of envelopes with white powder, and robbery. Are all the accusations true? most likely not, but that's why it's an active investigation with the reasons clearly stated in the released documents.
And again I ask you, why the hell would the government set up the two Boston bombers?
No I don't find it odd at all.xDarc said:
You make a home made bomb, it might work with the gentle lifting, the small strain of walking and gently being set down.
If you throw it out a car or suv at 35+ miles a hour, unless your good enough to make a impact resistant detonator and all that...
It'd shatter. I mean anyone can make a go cart out of a lawn mower engine, but since you can make a go cart can you make a fiberglass impact resistant bumper? Not in your garage most likely.
There might have been someone helping them, but that does stop the overwhelming evidence they planted the bombs at the race.
If they had leadership so what, they still planted the bombs and there is footage and witnesses. If someone taught them to make the bombs it doesn't change their guilt, as well as being shoddy bomb makers that their cheap home made devices don't survive a 35 mph impact onto pavement doesn't mean they didn't do it.
Cause if most smart people do anything wrong and am wrongly accused the first thing they do is open fire on cops, and make bombs to throw at them. Yeah not likely.
A report of chemical bomb, no mention of such a device being recovered. The only relation to Occupy? there's a movement nearby. They know the address so they know who resided at the address and they couldn't even make a direct connection.
How is this a terrorism matter? Private security firms have to do similar at festivals and concerts. This isnt a job for a counter terrorism coordinator. Like i said before a protest is a civil matter, this should of been the polices job.
So they are blaming OWS for sending letters containing white corn starch to banks? Yet i dont remember them getting involved in that prank the makers of aqua teen hunger force pulled off.
Yet again nothing is attributed to the occupy movement here, it is merely mentioned they are staging the protest in the area. Even if they could prove accoupy was responsible for the burglaries that would be a police matter. But since florida had the highest unemployment rate in america at the time it could just as easily be a coincidence.
Can you provide this quote in more context?
The mention of occupy in these articles, was in passing with no real right, or was attributing crimes in which were police matters and was no place to be discussed by a counter terrorism unit. You call the article bullshit, but you've just quoted pieces without actually analyzing what they are saying. Is it really that far a stretch to think the FBI might not of changed all that much since Hoover?NiPah said:
So your not denying they spied on on occupy members now? I don't know about you, but terrorists don't have a habit of staging massive public protests before mounting an attack. But if your in support of a police like state where everyone can be monitored on the whim they might do something wrong, then that's another debate.
If you read things properly as you have constantly demonstrated you cant do, you would realise i never made such claims that the government set up the Boston bombers.
Someone calling in a threat of a chemical weapon at an Occupy Wall Street rally, it gets labeled as domestic terrorism with use of WMD, address was location where threat was potentially located NOT where the call was made.
Due to ?regarding their observance of actions or comments indicating violent tendencies by attendees?, was it actually implemented? What were the noted violent tendencies? That will be homework for you since you?re the one who used this article as a source of a source of a source.
No, they mention the possibility, again this was notations of an active investigation. As for the Aqua Teen bomb scare the FBI was involved:
http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3440/3440lect06b.htm
Read up on the link, it actually provides additional information on how bomb and chemical weapon threats are handled by the US government.
Dissemination of information, FBI noted that a known group in the area were buying guns which pose a substantial risk to public safety.
Potential threat judged to visiting attorney general, risk deemed low, nothing was done. IE FBI did not think Occupy Wall Street movement in area posed a risk to the Attorney General who was visiting.
Where the hell did you get that shit? You said the FBI mislabeled the Occupy Wall Street as Terrorism, I did a search on the article and found every case where terrorism was used in the document, as you pointed out the FBI didn?t even fucking label the Occupy movement as terrorists as you?ve so clearly pointed out in the above statements. No right to be discussed by a counter terrorism unit? Threats of WMDs, white powder in letters sent to officials, and noted violence in mass protests are fucking good reasons for a threat to be looked at by a counter terrorism unit rather you like it or not. I just quoted pieces because they were pretty self explanatory, hell you?re the one using it as a source so I figured you would understand when I quoted the damn thing.
You?re the one who calls monitoring a public protest spying, again this was a report detailing many different situations which occurred during an active investigation. I never said I support a police state, that lie will not help you in your argument, and I also stated why monitoring was not on a whim, it was due to the threats of gun violence, threats to the Attorney General, threats of chemical weapons, and biological weapons as were clearly stated in my above post.
Read the title of the thread, this was a thread about how the government set up the Boston bombers, if you?re not talking about them then why the hell did you even join the conversation? Grandstanding against the evils of government seems to be a bit much given you?re piggy backing off a terrorist bombing that killed 3 and wounded hundreds to make your silly claim.