Show me more proof. (Boston bombings)

Recommended Videos

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
If it's a cover up, then the U.S. also has Russia on its side in this cover up, because Russia has been screaming, "We told you so!" for the past few days. And if Russia's involved in the cover up, then that probably means the cover up spans the entire freaking world. And if that's the case, ask yourself, honestly: Do you WANT to know the truth? Do you want to know the real reason behind something that would make two of the most powerful nations, and since everyone is now connected probably even more nations, cover up something as small (in unfeeling, cold-hard-numbers-sort-of-small) as a bombing? Because I sure wouldn't want to know the truth.

It baffles me how we have all this tech and all this science and people still go, "Nope. Not enough proof." The only thing left then would be time travel and place you there at the exact moment it happened so you could see it for your own eyes. Even then, people would probably say, "Nope. Time machine's rigged." It must have been a nightmare for people who lived even a few decades ago.
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
NiPah said:
xDarc said:
Deshin said:
I'm all well and for people being critical and analytical but Jesus Christ people, not every nutjob blowing up something is the bloody Da Vinci Code.
No, but the United States government and it's federal agencies have zero credibility at this point. Don't see how that's a radical view. Basically, pics or it didn't happen.
Really? Zero? I think that's going a bit far, as said a healthy cynical viewpoint is a good thing but you're straight off the paranoia spectrum. Pics will be present in the court of law where the defendant will be tried for the murder of 4 people as well as a slew of terrorist and other heavy crimes, if you're picked for the jury you'll have a chance to judge those "pics", otherwise most people including you and me will just get what ever is made public.
No he's right http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

zero credibility.

I'm not saying these lads are not guilty, odds are they did it.
 

Adamantium93

New member
Jun 9, 2010
146
0
0
That is why they are constantly referred to as "the alleged" bombers.

The surviving brother will have a trial where all the evidence is presented and it will be determined if he did actually commit the crime.

Word on the street is that he's already confessed though, so it will likely be a short trial unless something completely unforeseen arises (like if he objects to not being read his Miranda Rights when he was taken into custody. A good lawyer could make a lot of fuss over that.)

However, I do appreciate where you are coming from. Even though all current evidence seems to be pointing towards these two, allowing them fair treatment is how we can be assured that we will receive fair treatment if we are ever wrongfully accused of a crime. It isn't unheard of for the media to publicly crucify an accused's reputation only for said accused to be found innocent.
 

The Inquisitive Mug

New member
Jul 11, 2008
146
0
0
Guitarmasterx7 said:
saoirse13 said:
Edit: I should probably mention that yes I understand that these guys shot a cop and throw bombs out a window while trying to outrun cops. And that there is supposedly a confession.
Then why is there any question as to whether or not they did it? The two men are without a shadow of a doubt responsible, at least to some degree. Whether or not they are SOLELY responsible is a fairly legitimate question that doesn't require you to bust out the tinfoil headgear, but they were definitely involved in it one way or another.
EDIT: Provided a better link

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." -Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11

If they are truly guilty, as you say, then there is no harm in asking for clarification of the evidence or having this go to trial to have their guilt proven in the face of the suspect's confession.
 

NiPah

New member
May 8, 2009
1,084
0
0
flarty said:
NiPah said:
xDarc said:
Deshin said:
I'm all well and for people being critical and analytical but Jesus Christ people, not every nutjob blowing up something is the bloody Da Vinci Code.
No, but the United States government and it's federal agencies have zero credibility at this point. Don't see how that's a radical view. Basically, pics or it didn't happen.
Really? Zero? I think that's going a bit far, as said a healthy cynical viewpoint is a good thing but you're straight off the paranoia spectrum. Pics will be present in the court of law where the defendant will be tried for the murder of 4 people as well as a slew of terrorist and other heavy crimes, if you're picked for the jury you'll have a chance to judge those "pics", otherwise most people including you and me will just get what ever is made public.
No he's right http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

zero credibility.

I'm not saying these lads are not guilty, odds are they did it.
You linked me an article, which linked to another article, which amounts to "FBI let banks know they may be the target of a mass protest due to our investigations, they must be working together because we know there must be more documents!". You know what also has zero credibility? random bullshit articles which troll for hits in the guardians case, or troll for "donations to protect freedom" in the case of Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, both are heavily biased and actually have a reason for lying to you.

So yeah, healthy cynical viewpoint, don't believe everything you read on the Guardian.
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
NiPah said:
flarty said:
NiPah said:
xDarc said:
Deshin said:
I'm all well and for people being critical and analytical but Jesus Christ people, not every nutjob blowing up something is the bloody Da Vinci Code.
No, but the United States government and it's federal agencies have zero credibility at this point. Don't see how that's a radical view. Basically, pics or it didn't happen.
Really? Zero? I think that's going a bit far, as said a healthy cynical viewpoint is a good thing but you're straight off the paranoia spectrum. Pics will be present in the court of law where the defendant will be tried for the murder of 4 people as well as a slew of terrorist and other heavy crimes, if you're picked for the jury you'll have a chance to judge those "pics", otherwise most people including you and me will just get what ever is made public.
No he's right http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

zero credibility.

I'm not saying these lads are not guilty, odds are they did it.
You linked me an article, which linked to another article, which amounts to "FBI let banks know they may be the target of a mass protest due to our investigations, they must be working together because we know there must be more documents!". You know what also has zero credibility? random bullshit articles which troll for hits in the guardians case, or troll for "donations to protect freedom" in the case of Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, both are heavily biased and actually have a reason for lying to you.

So yeah, healthy cynical viewpoint, don't believe everything you read on the Guardian.
So the fact that occupy was treated as a terrorist and criminal threat in conjunction with the banks (whom it was aimed at) doesn't at least strike you as a bit totalitarian and biased?

It was demonstration, people have the right to demonstrate against what they see fit. Why should the banks be involved in coordinating against a demonstration aimed at them?

You may have a cynical viewpoint, but i wouldn't say its healthy as you seem to be lacking critical thinking to go with it.
 

the clockmaker

New member
Jun 11, 2010
423
0
0
flarty said:
NiPah said:
xDarc said:
Deshin said:
I'm all well and for people being critical and analytical but Jesus Christ people, not every nutjob blowing up something is the bloody Da Vinci Code.
No, but the United States government and it's federal agencies have zero credibility at this point. Don't see how that's a radical view. Basically, pics or it didn't happen.
Really? Zero? I think that's going a bit far, as said a healthy cynical viewpoint is a good thing but you're straight off the paranoia spectrum. Pics will be present in the court of law where the defendant will be tried for the murder of 4 people as well as a slew of terrorist and other heavy crimes, if you're picked for the jury you'll have a chance to judge those "pics", otherwise most people including you and me will just get what ever is made public.
No he's right http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

zero credibility.

I'm not saying these lads are not guilty, odds are they did it.
We had a thread on the series of articles that your link sources a while back in which I explained that the claims outlined in said article were a bunch of piss. If you want to try and discredit the US government, that is not the event to use
the clockmaker said:
Nowhere on the FBI website is the occupy movement listed as a terrorist group, foreign or domestic, so I don't know where a lot of you people are getting this idea from other than it 'feels right'

wall of text
As early as August 19, 2011, the FBI in New York was meeting with the New York Stock Exchange to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests that wouldn?t start for another month. By September, prior to the start of the OWS, the FBI was notifying businesses that they might be the focus of an OWS protest.
So the main targets of a protest were warned in advance that the protest was going to take place. On top of that, the organisers had advertised in many places their intent to hold this event. I am not seeing what is wrong with this, if the occupy movement had intended to protest the super bowl, then the FBI would have warned the stadium that was going to hold it, but as they were targeting wall street, they warned wall street.

The FBI?s Indianapolis division released a ?Potential Criminal Activity Alert? on September 15, 2011, even though they acknowledged that no specific protest date had been scheduled in Indiana. The documents show that the Indianapolis division of the FBI was coordinating with ?All Indiana State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies,? as well as the ?Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center,? the FBI ?Directorate of Intelligence? and other national FBI coordinating mechanisms.
-There was the potential for criminal activity, as there is anywhere larger groups of angry people gather
-Why is the federal and state law enforcement cooperating on a national matter a bad thing? Wasn't the lack of just this one of the primary complaints in the wake of 9/11?
-Why is their not knowing the specific date a bad thing? How is it even relevant?

Documents show the spying abuses of the FBI?s ?Campus Liaison Program? in which the FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated information to ?sixteen (16) different campus police officials,? and then ?six (6) additional campus police officials.? Campus officials were in contact with the FBI for information on OWS. A representative of the State University of New York at Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors.
-Author does not know what spying is
-Author does not state the nature of the information disseminated (ie it could be simply whether there were signs that the protest was becoming violent or dates on which it was likely to occur, you know, shit that campus police ought to be aware of.

Documents released show coordination between the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and corporate America. They include a report by the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), described by the federal government as ?a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector,? discussing the OWS protests at the West Coast ports to ?raise awareness concerning this type of criminal activity.? The DSAC report shows the nature of secret collaboration between American intelligence agencies and their corporate clients - the document contains a ?handling notice? that the information is ?meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other personnel?? (The DSAC document was also obtained by the Northern California ACLU which has sought local FBI surveillance files.)
-DSAC, from what I understand, is a body created to ensure the economic security of the US, that is, to prevent attacks that would have a detrimental economic effect, so of course that would include the major players in the economic field. As a comparison, the EPA collaborates and confers with environmental groups.
-DSAC is not secret, essentially all of the information in the quoted page can be found by googling 'DSAC' (it is the first result)
-All government documents contain some sort of notice along side the lines of 'for office use only' 'for official use only' etc etc.
-If it was actually secret it would be exempted under section 552b of the FOI act and the author would not have it.
Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) reported to the DSAC on the relationship between OWS and organized labor for the port actions. The NCIS describes itself as ?an elite worldwide federal law enforcement organization? whose ?mission is to investigate and defeat criminal, terrorist, and foreign intelligence threats to the United States Navy and Marine Corps ashore, afloat and in cyberspace.? The NCIS also assists with the transport of Guantanamo prisoners
-So the naval police reported on a connection between a naval group and a potential criminal element? And?
-What does Guantanamo have to do with this? The author is starting to sound like Alec Baldwin at the end of team America

DSAC issued several tips to its corporate clients on ?civil unrest? which it defines as ranging from ?small, organized rallies to large-scale demonstrations and rioting.? It advised to dress conservatively, avoid political discussions and ?avoid all large gatherings related to civil issues. Even seemingly peaceful rallies can spur violent activity or be met with resistance by security forces. Bystanders may be arrested or harmed by security forces using water cannons, tear gas or other measures to control crowds.?
- So it told the targets of Occupy to stay out of their way and not to provoke them? How is that a bad thing? How is that, in any way, anything other than responsible advice?

The FBI in Anchorage reported from a Joint Terrorism Task Force meeting of November 3, 2011, about Occupy activities in Anchorage.
-Again, author does not provide enough info re: the nature of the information reported to make a value judgment
-Occupy and movements like it are a magnet for 'black block' and similar entities, as a comparison, while a pro-Palestine march is most likely peaceful and law abiding, it would warrant increased law enforcement and counter terror attention due to the fact that it is more likely to attract extremist elements.

A port Facility Security Officer in Anchorage coordinated with the FBI to attend the meeting of protestors and gain intelligence on the planning of the port actions. He was advised to request the presence of an Anchorage Police Department official to also attend the event. The FBI Special Agent told the undercover private operative that he would notify the Joint Terrorism Task Force and that he would provide a point of contact at the Anchorage Police Department.
-Take a step back and look at the situation non-politically, there was a large group of people with motive and possible intent to do harm to the place that this security guard was protecting, so of course he contacted police and law enforcement and went to have a look for himself.
-Author seems to not understand what undercover is, it is not simply failing to identify oneself as a security/law enforcement officer, it is the creation and use of a new identity and the conscious deception of those around you. Plain clothes does not equal under cover and the connotations of the terms are very different.
-The author is putting too much weight on the idea that there was a 'private operative' (again 'operative' has very different connotations to 'security guard') but if we look at it in a non-idiotic fashion, it is no different to police collaborating with mall cops when there are suspected shoplifters about.

The Jacksonville, Florida FBI prepared a Domestic Terrorism briefing on the ?spread of the Occupy Wall Street Movement? in October 2011. The intelligence meeting discussed Occupy venues identifying ?Daytona, Gainesville and Ocala Resident Agency territories as portions ?where some of the highest unemployment rates in Florida continue to exist.?
-The occupy movement has/had the potential to spawn outlying extremist elements and as such warranted a place in a terrorism briefing. In no way does this mean that occupy was regarded as a terrorist group.

The Tampa, Florida FBI ?Domestic Terrorism? liaison participated with the Tampa Police Department?s monthly intelligence meeting in which Occupy Lakeland, Occupy Polk County and Occupy St. Petersburg were discussed. They reported on an individual ?leading the Occupy Tampa? and plans for travel to Gainesville for a protest planning meeting, as well as on Veterans for Peace plans to protest at MacDill Air Force Base.
-see above comment re:validity of occupy as a topic in anti-terror briefs.
-Again collaboration between local and federal law enforcement is not a sinister or bad thing, and in no way restricted to the reaction to the occupy movement.

The Federal Reserve in Richmond appears to have had personnel surveilling OWS planning. They were in contact with the FBI in Richmond to ?pass on information regarding the movement known as occupy Wall Street.? There were repeated communications ?to pass on updates of the events and decisions made during the small rallies and the following information received from the Capital Police Intelligence Unit through JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force).?
-closer reading of the page in question reveals only that the federal reserve policing unit was advised to pass on anything it knew about occupy by other elements within the federal reserve a sort of 'hey mate, who are these guys'
-Author shows no indication of surveillance and seems to fail to understand that all of the information in the relevant pages seems to be taken from public releases from the organisations in question
-That same page actually states that occupy is recognised as a peaceful movement and the concern is of its being hijacked by outlying extremist elements. I know the author read that page as they used it to create the above, misleading and misinformed post and as such I can only conclude that they omitted that information with the express intent of giving the wrong impression of the law enforcement entities involved.

The Virginia FBI was collecting intelligence on the OWS movement for dissemination to the Virginia Fusion Center and other Intelligence divisions.
-Again, an actual reading of the page in question shows that said information was provided for situational awareness purposes, in other terms, just so law enforcement entities were aware that, you know, there are hundreds of angry people in this area but (and again, this is explicitly stated) they are non violent.
-Author's tone seems to be deliberately misleading in that it seems to be trying to convince the reader that things like personal files and phone records were being compiled when in actuality it was only numbers and location, very reasonable things for the police to be concerned about.

The Milwaukee division of the FBI was coordinating with the Ashwaubenon Public Safety division in Green Bay Wisconsin regarding Occupy.
-Any large gathering is a potential risk to public safety, be it occupy, an ANZAC day parade or the fourth of July, all of the above would have merited the above coordination.

The Memphis FBI?s Joint Terrorism Task Force met to discuss ?domestic terrorism? threats, including, ?Aryan Nations, Occupy Wall Street, and Anonymous.?
-see above as to why they were a valid topic for the briefing and why this does not equate to being labelled a terrorist group.
-Their name came up in a briefing, whoop-de-fucking-do

The Birmingham, AL division of the FBI sent communications to HAZMAT teams regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement.
-A large group of people with little to no access to proper facilities and sanitation camping out in public in a part of the US known for being hot and humid, maybe there was a fucking reason that HAZMAT would be relevant, maybe something to do with the heightened potential for disease, maybe biological waste being improperly disposed of.

The Jackson, Mississippi division of the FBI attended a meeting of the Bank Security Group in Biloxi, MS with multiple private banks and the Biloxi Police Department, in which they discussed an announced protest for ?National Bad Bank Sit-In-Day? on December 7, 2011.
-again, occupy was targeting banks, therefore banks were briefed on proper security measures for protestors, if they had been targeting mosques, the FBI would more than likely have met with Imams.

The Denver, CO FBI and its Bank Fraud Working Group met and were briefed on Occupy Wall Street in November 2011. Members of the Working Group include private financial institutions and local area law enforcement.
-See above RE:coordination is neither bad nor sinister and why banks were briefed

Jackson, MS Joint Terrorism Task Force issued a ?Counterterrorism Preparedness? alert. This heavily redacted document includes the description, ?To document?the Occupy Wall Street Movement.?
-The document is too redacted to get a clear read off of, it could for example say "to document the potential for black bloc cooption of the occupy wall st movement" or anything along those lines and so no value judgement, positive or negative should be made from the source document that the above quote is commenting on.
-See above re: occupy's potential for being coopted by actual terrorist organistations and therefore its validity as a topic for discussion by counter terror organisations.

In conclusion, the source for the OP is willfully dishonest, clearly ignorant as to the meaning of key terms, lacks basic reading comprehension skills and seeks to demonise what are entirely benign events. No evidence of wrongdoing was shown or even convincingly alluded to, accusations were made without proof, terms were twisted away from their proper meanings and all in all, the author is both dishonest and kind of an idiot.

The OP's source is full of nonsense
EDIT: and there is nothing in there about cracking down, 99% of it is just law enforcement agencies giving each other a heads up.
 

NiPah

New member
May 8, 2009
1,084
0
0
flarty said:
So the fact that occupy was treated as a terrorist and criminal threat in conjunction with the banks (whom it was aimed at) doesn't at least strike you as a bit totalitarian and biased?

It was demonstration, people have the right to demonstrate against what they see fit. Why should the banks be involved in coordinating against a demonstration aimed at them?

You may have a cynical viewpoint, but i wouldn't say its healthy as you seem to be lacking critical thinking to go with it.
I'm not saying the government did everything right in the case of Occupy Wall Street, I'm saying its a bit odd to think the government set up two college students for a terrorist attack, and I'm also calling your source bullshit. My critical thinking skills may not be up to your liking, but I'm calling yours laughable as well.
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
the clockmaker said:
The documents indicate that the FBI infiltrated the occupy movement and was labeling them a domestic terrorist group.

The distinction between legal dissent and criminal conduct is easily forgotten i guess.


NiPah said:
Call bullshit on my source? The documents are all over the internet. Where did i say that the FBI was framing the terror suspects. I was stating i feel they have lost all credibility and presented the reason why, since you seemed to agressively dismissed the previous posters opinion of government agencies.

To coordinate a forceful crackdown as they did against a mostly peaceful protest. Presents a great question of who's interest the FBI has at heart. You have the right to protest.
 

the clockmaker

New member
Jun 11, 2010
423
0
0
flarty said:
the clockmaker said:
The documents indicate that the FBI infiltrated the occupy movement and was labeling them a domestic terrorist group.

The distinction between legal dissent and criminal conduct is easily forgotten i guess.
Did you somehow miss the part where I explained, in a fair amount of detail how that is not true? The documents indicate no such thing. Either actually show that they fucking do or stop saying that. I mean, all you are doing is simple repetition, you don't seem to be taking anything in.
 

Elementary - Dear Watson

RIP Eleuthera, I will miss you
Nov 9, 2010
2,980
0
0
saoirse13 said:
And what exactly is it that you do for the government, are you the janitor, or a secretary or do you have a high ranking job where your finger is placed advertised a few red buttons. I'm sorry, but that's what is called free speech another thing he government aren't too happy with. As someone who has seen and experienced the effects of a governments abuse of power and how they have covered certain tragedies up, I am entitled to my rit to question the bollocks told by the mouthpiece for the govt. and the fact hat you can sit there and tell me my assumptions are way off ball then you sir are not as well informed and educated as you like to think you are.
What do I do? I am an officer for the RAF. My job involves making decisions that effect lives, and I use information that is not availiable to the public to make those decisions. I am plugged into these operational level feeds, and have been part of things in the past that made foil hatters jizz into their undersised cranium shells for a chance at solving another conspiricy... The big one being the missiles on the roofs thing for the olympics. A standard practice of point defence, placed in the most convenient and legal place, that because some people didn't like it a shit storm appeared.

Get this... Those guys were involved. Whether they were the only ones involved is neither here nor there, they were involved and will be dealt with appropriately. Any other involvement will be looked at by proffiessionals, ie the best people in your country to find it out, who are at a better standing than johnny civvie who reads too many unconfirmed open source reports...
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
the clockmaker said:
flarty said:
the clockmaker said:
The documents indicate that the FBI infiltrated the occupy movement and was labeling them a domestic terrorist group.

The distinction between legal dissent and criminal conduct is easily forgotten i guess.
Did you somehow miss the part where I explained, in a fair amount of detail how that is not true? The documents indicate no such thing. Either actually show that they fucking do or stop saying that. I mean, all you are doing is simple repetition, you don't seem to be taking anything in.
So why is the occupy movement mentioned several times in documents and articles under the title "domestic terrorism"

"Title: CAMPUS LIAISON
Liaison Matters

Synopsis: To document dissemination and claim appropriate
statistical accomplishments."

How does that not constitute spying?


Edit: I just noticed that you haven't even read the document have you? Your just critiquing the websites critique of the document.
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
614
0
0
saoirse13 said:
Is it just me or am I missing something. I'm not condoning terrorist activity, but I have yet to see any concrete evidence that the two accused for the Boston bombings actually did it.

*SNIP*

And maybe I should be classified as a nutcase because I'd rather question the crap we are told before actually making a judgment.
Honestly, I thought it was strange and I still think it is strange. So I am with you OP.

You know why?

Islamic Terror Groups do not WAIT to take responsibility, that's why. The amount of surveillance these two were under prior to the attacks, thats why. Either the American secret service is LEGENDARILY incompetent or something is up. Now, I know its best to never assume conspiracy when incompetence can be just as easily used to explain something.

But the thing is, it just doesn't make sense. They were watched prior to their movements, the class of intellectual they both were (Ok, that still works, the guys who crashed the worlds worst car bomb into Glasgow were intellectual), the lack of immediately going "WE DONE IT", the injuries sustained during their capture (Yep, even going for OTT on that, the dudes were armed and dangerous, yes, but also INCREDIBLE intelligence assets.)

So you know what? I agree with you OP.

Something is not right about this whole affair. It was just way too... Preventable. I mean, guys who were under surveillance constantly successfully blow up a major sporting event after making trip after trip to a terror hotspot?

EDIT:

Oh, as for why?

Terror attacks are a good way of making people angry and getting them behind wars. Would be good for American/Russian relations if they invaded somewhere together.
 

Guy from the 80's

New member
Mar 7, 2012
423
0
0
saoirse13 said:
Is it just me or am I missing something. I'm not condoning terrorist activity, but I have yet to see any concrete evidence that the two accused for the Boston bombings actually did it.
Was it false flax Alex Jones?
 

NiPah

New member
May 8, 2009
1,084
0
0
flarty said:
NiPah said:
Call bullshit on my source? The documents are all over the internet. Where did i say that the FBI was framing the terror suspects. I was stating i feel they have lost all credibility and presented the reason why, since you seemed to agressively dismissed the previous posters opinion of government agencies.

To coordinate a forceful crackdown as they did against a mostly peaceful protest. Presents a great question of who's interest the FBI has at heart. You have the right to protest.
Because I don't have time to read an entire 138 page document quoted in the original website quoted by the website you linked, please tell me which part and on which page of the document proves the FBI forcefully cracked down the occupy movement, and not just noted the possibility they may a high risk.

And again I call into question your critical thinking, you're defending a guy why thinks the government set up two college kids in a terrorist bombing, I said a healthy level of cynicism is good but that takes it too far... and you defended him, you're arguing (knowingly or not) that the government framed two college kids as terrorist bombers because some bullshit with the Occupy movement.

I mean bloody hell, only on the internet would you see people use a terrorist bombing as a staging place to progress the tired old "evil government" song and dance. The original poster gets a pass because he sounds downright nuts, you don't because your just following the set routine all fair weather anarchists use when someone brings up "Evil government".

Actually cut that first part of my post, I don't want you to link me anything with the occupy bullshit because that would just further derail the topic and help your cause. What I want you to do is explain why you think the government is framing two kids for bombing and how, since thats what you're so keen at defending.
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
NiPah said:
Because I don't have time to read an entire 138 page document quoted in the original website quoted by the website you linked, please tell me which part and on which page of the document proves the FBI forcefully cracked down the occupy movement, and not just noted the possibility they may a high risk.
Then don't "call bullshit" on evidence that you haven't even looked at passingly. If your just going to make baseless claims then there's no point talking to you about anything. I'm guessing the rest of your post is basically you sticking your fingers in your ears saying "tralalala your off your tits you left wing wackos, lalalalala why would the fbi not have our best interests at heart lalalalala." I'll save myself some time and assume it is.
 

Gecko clown

New member
Mar 28, 2011
161
0
0
Though they might not have done it, I don't have much info on actual evidence, they definitely did get involved in a gigantic gta-style car chase with the police, SMG's, grenades, the lot. That's more than enough to warrant an arrest.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
The main thing with conspiracy theorists is that evidence is the last thing they want. Their usual MO is simply going "No evidence I'm not right, no evidence I'm not right" until the other party goes "Fuck it, I've had it with you obnoxious folks", at which point the conspiracy theorists go "AHA! See! I knew it! I KNEW THEY'RE HIDING SOMETHING!"

Now, of course I understand the need to critical thinking and considering the possibility of the event really having been staged as a false flag, no matter how slim that possibility is.

In order to consider that possibility as relevant enough to warrant further investigation, at minimum the following questions need to be answered with sufficiently supported, concrete, answers - "maybes" don't count. "Some shadowy group" in any way, shape or form doesn't count, unless you can name the group and show how they are likely to be involved:

1) Who is FBI really working for?
2) What motive do they have to cover up the real scenario?
3) How is the government keeping the Russians in on the cover-up and preventing them from blowing it?[footnote]Remember, FSB has warned FBI about these two years ago - if there really was a cover-up they'd know about it. And what better chance to discredit another power on the international stage?[/footnote]
4) Who really did it?
5) How did they do it?
6) What was the true motive for the bombing?

Again, the questions aren't asking for opinions, they're asking for fact that support the speculation of the bombing being some kind of a false flag/conspiracy

You say you want evidence, okay. But if you're so downright determined that this is a cover-up, why don't you go and look for the evidence yourselves? Because, you know, accusing someone of secretly working for some conclave of soul drinkers from the 6th dimension isn't the way to treat them if you actually want something from them, so they aren't too likely to do that work for you.
 

TrulyBritish

New member
Jan 23, 2013
473
0
0
Look, it's a good thing to question exactly what the government and media are saying, heck if more people did it we might be better off. However you can't demand for evidence and then turn around saying "Well that's what THE MAN says, so why should I believe you?". Unless you're honestly expecting some kind of Boston Batman and other vigilante group to spring down and show you film of some FBI agent planting the bombs on the suspects there's no point. As much as I dislike it all of my news comes from some media source or whatever, the trick is being able to decide what you think of the evidence.