Boston Marathon Bombings

[whitewind]

Control fear of random evilness perpetrated by the government? I am happy to accept scientific evidence of proof that something happened a certain way. That does not automatically make me accept that a corrupt government like the US or Britain could not create such an act to forward their agenda. While the official story is quite plausible, so is:

1. The government agencies set up the brothers by offering them encouragement and tools

2. The brothers were being 'run' by the agencies

I will be honest, I'm not convinced they weren't genuine terrorists, but I like to look at the evidence and make that decision for myself not just happily accept the official explanation. For example, I don't see much convincing evidence of the whole thing being staged with actors and fake blood, however some of the photoshopping apparently done by the newspapers is quite weird. Why Photoshop out a wound in a field of blood and gore? I don't get it.

The actions of the Craft International contractors is very suspicious too.

[qualia]

All the reality-based evidence in the world

such as? two peole walking along a street? one person travelling to another country? russia asking US to investigate?

a bag on the ground (that hardly seems to match)? boston governor saying he's not seen the tapes but someone told him what was on it?

a supposed "confession" (which i'm sure any competent lawyer could get easily dismissed)?

what evidence?

[botanika]

There is no evidence to support this. In fact the evidence is to the contrary. The FBI would not put them on a watch list if they were employed by FBI. It's plausible Chuck Norris could have funded the terrorists but that doesn't mean he actually did.

This is the whole difficult battle. There are over a million people on the terrorist watch list. It's nigh impossible to monitor every single one of their movements and plans in realtime. But some terrorism plans are intercepted so its better than doing nothing right?

I chased 911 ghosts for years until I actually started doing my homework and realised the CT's were completely wrong. I am a lot more skeptical of CT's these days than I am of governments and media networks. Irrefutable facts and evidence trump motives and hypothetical scenarios.

Control fear of random evilness perpetrated by the government? I am happy to accept scientific evidence of proof that something happened a certain way. That does not automatically make me accept that a corrupt government like the US or Britain could not create such an act to forward their agenda. While the official story is quite plausible, so is:

1. The government agencies set up the brothers by offering them encouragement and tools

2. The brothers were being 'run' by the agencies

[qualia]

There are over a million people on the terrorist watch list.

The Terrorist Screening Database or TSDB is the central terrorist watchlist consolidated by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center and used by multiple agencies to compile their specific watchlists and for screening. The list consists of 400,000 unique names.

[whitewind]

Funnily enough I used to laugh at conspiracy theorists until 9/11, and I started looking into it. Yes, there's a lot of shit out there, but I'm still convinced it was a setup by the government, a "false flag" attack. There's a lot of information out there to make me incredibly suspicious of the American government and it's bedfellows, corporations.

The other attacks could well be run of the ill terrorists, in fact I think it's a sign that human nature isn't usually intrinsically bad that there isn't a lot more terrorism in America than there actually is. It's a hotbed of unrest and intolerance.

[whitewind]

I think its a very basic misconception that the monetary powerful think like the average person. They don't. The average person uses money as a tool because they are forced to, most have other interests like family, sport, enjoying themselves, that get in the way. Their main focus isn't money, except that they are forced to by the economic system they reside in. They also assume that everyone thinks much like they are, and to a large extent that's true.

However.

The very powerful don't think like the average person. They believe that the most important thing is power, and money is power, so they gather as much money as they can through using power over other people to get what they want. They almost invariably rise to the top when smart enough. That power use invariably means that others suffer, it's an essential by-product of wielding it. Therefore they show themselves lacking in empathy, or care, for others.

After a point, there is enough money to easily see for your every need for the rest of your life, so long as you keep hold of it. So why do people keep making it? Because it's not about money, it's about the power money brings. So the most powerful in the world are likely to be the most lacking in empathy for others.

See where this is going? If the ultimate reason for your existence is power, and empathy is lacking, then it becomes quite clear how easy it would be to use harm others severely to achieve your goals, the only thing stopping you are the consequences of being caught. So you will do anything in your not inconsiderable power to ensure you don't get caught, and to do that you must lie.

What is the best way to attack a country that hasn't harmed you for years, and is incapable of doing so, but has resources that your most powerful financial advisors have informed you are essential to avoid economic collapse? Make it look like they have attacked you seriously, and will continue to do so again and again until they are stopped.

As we have seen, Saudi Arabian (some of whom are still alive) terrorists linked to Afghanistan (apparently) "forced" America to attack Iraq which had no weapons of mass destruction and had been undergoing serious economic hardship for over a decade, and yet had vast reserves of oil.

You arent even remotely suspicious of that?

[nothinghead]

Couple of observations/responses to botanika's posts:

1) I find it hard to take seriously journalism that characterises any attempt to explain an event in ways that conflict with official and mass media accounts as "nutballs and magical thinkers.". Anyone who cares to do some basic research on conspiracy theories will find that among the innumerable conjectures out there, there are solid examples of states telling bald-faced, premeditated lies to the public about events on all kinds of scales. To dismiss speculative dissent wholesale as nutjobs nutjobbing is intellectually lazy and dishonest, if not outright and intentionally ideological.

2a) “Paradoxically, it is much easier for people to accept the idea of a government conspiracy than it is to believe that it was just a random act.” - I would've thought a ranking cog-sci academic would be able to use the term paradox correctly. In the context of human cultural history this is hardly a paradox; we've always sought out ways of explaining seemingly random events by way of storytelling, often by referring to a higher authority or power. e.g. thunder being linked to the power of god during the sermon on the mount, rather than being seen as random (since meteorology wasn't much of a thing in those days).
2b) The Boston bombing is hardly being characterised as a random act. We've already been given numerous suggestions for where to place the blame: on Islam, on Chechnya (together with implications of Cold War paranoia), on social misfits… we've already been fed numerous explanations and been given scapegoats, as well as-
2c) Conspiracy theories! No one seems to be mentioning that the official story we're hearing is itself a conspiracy theory. Specifically, the accusation is that two young men, at least one of whom was supposedly deeply influenced by radical Islam, conspired to bomb the marathon and carry out more bombings. The official story is a conspiracy theory, too. At least until factual evidence is discovered or manufactured.

4) "It’s much a better picture [sic] to have an enemy whom you can blame." Once again, we had already been given this picture within days of the event. Numerous pictures, in fact, of not-quite-whities who are apparently threatening our freedoms. People didn't need to go searching for an image of evil upon which to transpose their blame. We were forcefed that image, pre-packaged with a number of prejudices, through the barrage of worldwide news coverage. I think botanika's explanation regarding the notoriously cavalier mass media and the conflicting accounts of events are a much more likely basis for producing speculation that differs from the official stories.

5) "I think they’re watching themselves being ignored, and that’s the one thing they hate" If this is an issue about subjectivity and recognition, how do we explain the torrential discussion of the topic on majority anonymous boards like 4chan where no-one gets recognition nor recognised?

***

6) "There are over a million people on the terrorist watch list. It's nigh impossible to monitor every single one of their movements and plans in realtime." If Tamerlan had been visiting a region that is known chiefly in the US for its militant Islamic cells and training operations this should have been a huge red flag. And the US will check that shit at the border every time. I've been hassled for entry for having the most banal European stamps in my passport (among numerous other things). With how paranoid and over-resourced the border cops are in the US it seems unlikely to me, personally, that this kind of overseas trip could have flown under the radar of terrorist paranoia once he returned to the States.

***

edit: unrelated to botanika's posts, i'd like to add that characterising the pressure cooker bombs as WMD not only trivialises the falsified justification for invading Iraq in 2003, but links the boston bombings to the US's globalist prerogative already long in motion in a manner which renders "suspicious" an understatement.

speaking of trivia, did anyone else find it amusing that it took the media a couple of days to move from stating that Dzhokhar couldn't make a statement because of a neck wound that affected his speech to realising that in our modern age we do have means of communication other than speech. hint: i'm using one such now.

Edited April 27, 2013 by raketemensch

[CβL]

This whole thing is very fishy. If I had cloned myself, I would devote one of them the task of unravelling the facts. Alas.

speaking of trivia, did anyone else find it amusing that it took the media a couple of days to move from stating that Dzhokhar couldn't make a statement because of a neck wound that affected his speech to realising that in our modern age we do have means of communication other than speech. hint: i'm using one such now.

I noticed this almost within an instant. Sometimes I just cannot understand statements like that. They're just so utterly stupid that it's hard to believe that they're intentional and honest. I think that one angle that is often unexplored is that much of what the media might report could be intentionally easy to debunk - such as that statement. If I'm not mistaken, it's a propaganda tactic - to release every kind of misinformation - not just your distilled, most potent lies.

[qualia]

If I'm not mistaken, it's a propaganda tactic - to release every kind of misinformation - not just your distilled, most potent lies.

i kind of got that feeling, the sheer flood of information coming out constantly designed to blind the senses, in a sea of chaos there arises a pattern, the one the fbi puts forward, and in in this sea of chaos this island of constancy (the fbi suspects) is what people latch on to. everyone's saying everything and it's all different so the one stream of consistent information must be the one that's right, right?

[qualia]

there is a lot of suspicious shit about this whole thing

We still don’t know what really happened in Boston and who committed the attacks even though the mainstream media report that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has admitted being guilty. What we know for sure is that the official Boston bombing narrative is filled with lies and that since 9/11 and in the context of the fictitious “War on Terror”, Western governments, intelligence agencies and mainstream media have proven to be untrustworthy sources of information on alleged “terrorist attacks” or “foiled terrorist plots”.

Edited April 27, 2013 by qualia

[whitewind]

i kind of got that feeling, the sheer flood of information coming out constantly designed to blind the senses, in a sea of chaos there arises a pattern, the one the fbi puts forward, and in in this sea of chaos this island of constancy (the fbi suspects) is what people latch on to. everyone's saying everything and it's all different so the one stream of consistent information must be the one that's right, right?

It's not even consistent, to be fair. The only thing that makes it stand out from the sea of confusion is the fact that it's the "official" version, which morphed and changed regularly and gave people an exciting, unfolding story to latch on to to make sense of the horror. The fact is, the official version has changed so many times over time that the only thing consistent about it is the dialogue "it's terrifying" and "we need to control this terror".

Raketemensch's post was the best of this thread so far.

[Bigred]

Cui Bono

Edited April 27, 2013 by bigred82

[bℓσωηG]

Speaking of 9/11, they reckon they have found landing gear from the planes wedged between two buildings.

How convenient aye , just in time to mark the opening of Bush's presidential library..

I just watched this video from RT news (love this chick by the way) covering the opening of Bush's library , and well im no expert, but the feelings i get from watching these frauds speak , i mean it makes my skin crawl .There is a heaviness , their energy is jagged, , dirty and bloodstained , absolute paranoia and sliminess in and around them ... like they're shit scared the truth will come out very soon.. or is it just me spending too much time alone meditating

 

Edited April 27, 2013 by bℓσωηG

[bℓσωηG]

lol fuck hes a genius

George W Bush has a slip-of-the-tongue and ALMOST says the Boston bombs was a CONSPIRACY.

 

[folias]

"George Bush is Smarter Than You"

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

[botanika]

Funnily enough I used to laugh at conspiracy theorists until 9/11, and I started looking into it. Yes, there's a lot of shit out there, but I'm still convinced it was a setup by the government, a "false flag" attack. There's a lot of information out there to make me incredibly suspicious of the American government and it's bedfellows, corporations.

There's an enormous amount of false information put out by CT's on 9/11. Certainly the american government has some responsibility because it failed to act effectively against the attacks - they had warnings - and some very clear warnings from the Phillipines government prior to the event. Bush, Cheney and Rice all got scolded by the commission for that. Certainly they also utilized 911 to push for a war in Iraq. But that does not mean the US government, or corporate interests, planned and carried out 911. There is no evidence for it. CT's after more than a decade still do not have a clear case and they never will because they are pushing lies and speculation. They profit from a gullible public that has not done its homework or simply doesnt care for the actual facts.

There are some very powerful groups in the world, that is nothing new, but one does not need to be a Rockefeller to make the headlines.

[botanika]

Couple of observations/responses to botanika's posts:

1) I find it hard to take seriously journalism that characterises any attempt to explain an event in ways that conflict with official and mass media accounts as "nutballs and magical thinkers.". Anyone who cares to do some basic research on conspiracy theories will find that among the innumerable conjectures out there, there are solid examples of states telling bald-faced, premeditated lies to the public about events on all kinds of scales. To dismiss speculative dissent wholesale as nutjobs nutjobbing is intellectually lazy and dishonest, if not outright and intentionally ideological.

2a) “Paradoxically, it is much easier for people to accept the idea of a government conspiracy than it is to believe that it was just a random act.” - I would've thought a ranking cog-sci academic would be able to use the term paradox correctly. In the context of human cultural history this is hardly a paradox; we've always sought out ways of explaining seemingly random events by way of storytelling, often by referring to a higher authority or power. e.g. thunder being linked to the power of god during the sermon on the mount, rather than being seen as random (since meteorology wasn't much of a thing in those days).

2b) The Boston bombing is hardly being characterised as a random act. We've already been given numerous suggestions for where to place the blame: on Islam, on Chechnya (together with implications of Cold War paranoia), on social misfits… we've already been fed numerous explanations and been given scapegoats, as well as-

2c) Conspiracy theories! No one seems to be mentioning that the official story we're hearing is itself a conspiracy theory. Specifically, the accusation is that two young men, at least one of whom was supposedly deeply influenced by radical Islam, conspired to bomb the marathon and carry out more bombings. The official story is a conspiracy theory, too. At least until factual evidence is discovered or manufactured.

4) "It’s much a better picture [sic] to have an enemy whom you can blame." Once again, we had already been given this picture within days of the event. Numerous pictures, in fact, of not-quite-whities who are apparently threatening our freedoms. People didn't need to go searching for an image of evil upon which to transpose their blame. We were forcefed that image, pre-packaged with a number of prejudices, through the barrage of worldwide news coverage. I think botanika's explanation regarding the notoriously cavalier mass media and the conflicting accounts of events are a much more likely basis for producing speculation that differs from the official stories.

5) "I think they’re watching themselves being ignored, and that’s the one thing they hate" If this is an issue about subjectivity and recognition, how do we explain the torrential discussion of the topic on majority anonymous boards like 4chan where no-one gets recognition nor recognised?

***

6) "There are over a million people on the terrorist watch list. It's nigh impossible to monitor every single one of their movements and plans in realtime." If Tamerlan had been visiting a region that is known chiefly in the US for its militant Islamic cells and training operations this should have been a huge red flag. And the US will check that shit at the border every time. I've been hassled for entry for having the most banal European stamps in my passport (among numerous other things). With how paranoid and over-resourced the border cops are in the US it seems unlikely to me, personally, that this kind of overseas trip could have flown under the radar of terrorist paranoia once he returned to the States.

***

edit: unrelated to botanika's posts, i'd like to add that characterising the pressure cooker bombs as WMD not only trivialises the falsified justification for invading Iraq in 2003, but links the boston bombings to the US's globalist prerogative already long in motion in a manner which renders "suspicious" an understatement.

speaking of trivia, did anyone else find it amusing that it took the media a couple of days to move from stating that Dzhokhar couldn't make a statement because of a neck wound that affected his speech to realising that in our modern age we do have means of communication other than speech. hint: i'm using one such now.

But nowhere can you prove the alleged bombers are innocent nor are you helping create a solid case for exactly who carried out the attack if you believe it to be someone else. If you think it is an act perpretrated by a government agency provide evidence. If the bombers are innocent provide evidence.

The older brother didn't fly under the radar. He was on a watch list. His homeland is the north Caucasus and his religion is Islam. He was known to the FSB and the FBI. The FBI dropped the case when the FSB did not provide them with information requested by the FBI. Should he have been arrested for visiting his homeland/relatives and being a muslim?? Tamerlan was seen by Dagestan police making six visits to a known Islamic militant in a Salafi mosque in Makhachkala. Can he be arrested for visiting a Mosque? Did amyone have evidence to warrant an arrest at the time for Tamerlan? Is it not conceivable that he became radicalized and motivated to carry out a bombing attack? Motivated enough for the younger brother to follow suit? Perhaps we will never know the full story of motive and influence as Tamerlan is dead. If he was alternatively trained by the FBI or CIA or the US government, where is the evidence? Let's see what happens at the trial.

I don't agree with the way Bush originally defined Terrorism but one cannot deny that terrorists exist or that radical islamic followers are capable of harming innocent people with fairly unsophisticated methods.

Edited April 28, 2013 by botanika

[nothinghead]

"If you think it is an act perpretrated by a government agency provide evidence."

That's the thing, I don't assert any speculation about "what really happened" because I'm not in a position to know. All I know is that from the number of contradictions in the stories, the way the media has presented the case, the personal testimonials about the suspects etc. it's clear that the stories we are being told don't give us an accurate picture of what happened. Instead they play to collective fears and other psychological factors that "sell papers" (or, should I say, get hits). IMO the the speculation on forums etc. is a good way of figuring out that we are (and how we are) being lied to, even if we can't get too close to an approximation of the events themselves through the speculation. It's also a good way of demonstrating that we aren't complacent and do care about justice.

"Should he have been arrested for visiting his homeland/relatives and being a muslim??"

Definitely not. However, given what I understand to be normal practices at the US border (i.e. those that I've experienced on my visits there) the smallest detail deemed suspicious is enough to have you detained and interrogated and recorded. After that, even if his movements weren't monitored in real time (which I agree would be difficult even with a relatively small list), it doesn't take a lot of resources to monitor things like internet activity. As we've seen, Tamerlan has been accused of having a public youtube account with jihadi material on it, had done an interview suggesting that he felt alienated in the US, and there's probably more. That kind of oversight is suspicious. It seems to me that supporting circumstantial evidence that Tamerlan was a POI was easy enough to find, especially for the FBI and CIA, so why was his file closed? If they genuinely didn't find anything suspicious about him, how did he manage to get involved with an international jihadi movement without leaving traces other than visiting Dagestan?

[Sallubrious]

"George Bush is Smarter Than You"

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

Oh yeah he's a fucken genius

 

http://youtu.be/SHU4v0Odkdw

I wanted to post a lot more vids but my connection isn't working - again, seems to be happening a lot lately. Some of Georges' statements are pure gold.

Noo cu lar !!!

C'mon seriously that bastard was dropped on the head at birth and then the medical staff must have played soccer with his head to kickstart his tainted evil heart.

In his defence he did wank himself off in the coffin while his mates stood around chanting, those yale (skull & bones) boys know how to get ahead.

[bℓσωηG]

WTF? FOX NEWS ADMIT FBI HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN 17 FALSE FLAG TERROR NON-EVENTS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5LDw7ppLK7w

The FBI is creating and grooming people who are anti government to become “terrorists” in “sting operations”.

This article claims that “Of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in [FBI] sting operations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Most defendants charged in these “sting operations” claim “entrapment” for their defense and thereby lose in court.

Edited April 28, 2013 by bℓσωηG

[whitewind]

Fox News is anti-government can you trust them? They are the mouthpiece of corporate interest in th US

[bℓσωηG]

Fox News is anti-government can you trust them? They are the mouthpiece of corporate interest in th US

...exactly why its so surprising to see , its unclear what their agenda is .

[whitewind]

FBI double agents working for the corporations to weaken government by fomenting dissent and distrust in the government?

[bℓσωηG]

read the comments to this to see what were looking for here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwZv_fsXEes&list=WLepbgvLo3O-4W3TCjLZTaZnRZIH6yJzIK

[bℓσωηG]

FBI double agents working for the corporations to weaken government by fomenting dissent and distrust in the government?

im stumped , reverse psychology?

this vid is slightly off topic but related ..