Show me more proof. (Boston bombings)

[Lovely Mixture]

If you phrased it as a question "Can you show me more proof?" It would come off as a loaded question.

You are right to question given evidence, but I think there's a limit to demanding more evidence (depending on whether you demand entirely new evidence or analysis of given evidence).

I can say Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and present the evidence. But if someone demands an exact picture of the moment he shot Kennedy there's nothing I can do.

 

[flarty]

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.

I was going to write a reply till i saw this. You made a statement, are you saying I'm not allowed to retort? if i do, you label me a terrorist sympathizer. How fucking ignorant of you. I stated in my first post that the suspects were probably guilty. I was stating my opinion that people have a good reason to label the FBI as incompetent. This is just one example that I'm not even going to get in to now, there's plenty of others, Like anonymous monitoring their internet conferences, lets not forget Waco or the protection of high level criminals like whitey bulger for 30 odd years.

Also if i wanted to point to the evils of the US government I'd point to the horrific foreign policy and the trail of destruction has left in poor countries around the world for the last 50 years.

But no you just make ignorant offensive angry posts instead of calmly discussing the matter. Shouting doesn't win a debate it just turns it into an argument, and i refuse to argue.

 

[NiPah]

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.

I was going to write a reply till i saw this. You made a statement, are you saying I'm not allowed to retort? if i do, you label me a terrorist sympathizer. How fucking ignorant of you. I stated in my first post that the suspects were probably guilty. I was stating my opinion that people have a good reason to label the FBI as incompetent. This is just one example that I'm not even going to get in to now, there's plenty of others, Like anonymous monitoring their internet conferences, lets not forget Waco or the protection of high level criminals like whitey bulger for 30 odd years.

Also if i wanted to point to the evils of the US government I'd point to the horrific foreign policy and the trail of destruction has left in poor countries around the world for the last 50 years.

But no you just make ignorant offensive angry posts instead of calmly discussing the matter. Shouting doesn't win a debate it just turns it into an argument, and i refuse to argue.

That post wasn't anger, it's common practice for fairweather anarchists to poke there head into any debate dealing with the possibility of the government doing something wrong and post random shit that promotes just how "evil" the government is, you're following in the footsteps of many great Youtube commenters. I would say it's more entertainment then malice that I poke holes in their sources and points, don't take it personally mate you're just following the wrong crowd.
So that makes it 2 times you've valiantly run away after being backed into a corner this thread, lets make it 3.

 

[flarty]

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.

I was going to write a reply till i saw this. You made a statement, are you saying I'm not allowed to retort? if i do, you label me a terrorist sympathizer. How fucking ignorant of you. I stated in my first post that the suspects were probably guilty. I was stating my opinion that people have a good reason to label the FBI as incompetent. This is just one example that I'm not even going to get in to now, there's plenty of others, Like anonymous monitoring their internet conferences, lets not forget Waco or the protection of high level criminals like whitey bulger for 30 odd years.

Also if i wanted to point to the evils of the US government I'd point to the horrific foreign policy and the trail of destruction has left in poor countries around the world for the last 50 years.

But no you just make ignorant offensive angry posts instead of calmly discussing the matter. Shouting doesn't win a debate it just turns it into an argument, and i refuse to argue.

That post wasn't anger, it's common practice for fairweather anarchists to poke there head into any debate dealing with the possibility of the government doing something wrong and post random shit that promotes just how "evil" the government is, you're following in the footsteps of many great Youtube commenters. I would say it's more entertainment then malice that I poke holes in their sources and points, don't take it personally mate you're just following the wrong crowd.
So that makes it 2 times you've valiantly run away after being backed into a corner this thread, lets make it 3.

Running away? from the man who appears to be stalking me? Oh dear someone on the internet i have never met is throwing accusations of my credibility. Jesus if it means that much to you to save face as an anonymous poster on an internet forum, then yes go tell all your buddies i ran away. Or go outside?

Just because i didn't retort in an another analysis of the FBI document doesn't mean i ran away. It means i cant be bothered debating it with yourself. I don't know why i attempted to discuss the matter after you made it so plainly clear you don't mind having your privacy violated on in case your naughty. Plainly shows that you believe in anything your spoon fed instead of asking why. Also as i said it wasn't an attack on Evil government, if i wanted to attack "evil government" I'd talk about how drone strikes only kill an estimated 1 terrorist for every 50 civilian. But i bet you have some way of making that seem OK too

P.S Its nice to know that anonymous monitoring their internet conferences, Waco or the protection of high level criminals, doesn't harm the FBI's credibility. Or is that it worth mentioning as it doesn't fit in with your argument?

 

[NiPah]

snip

Running away? from the man who appears to be stalking me? Oh dear someone on the internet i have never met is throwing accusations of my credibility. Jesus if it means that much to you to save face as an anonymous poster on an internet forum, then yes go tell all your buddies i ran away. Or go outside?

Just because i didn't retort in an another analysis of the FBI document doesn't mean i ran away. It means i cant be bothered debating it with yourself. I don't know why i attempted to discuss the matter after you made it so plainly clear you don't mind having your privacy violated on in case your naughty. Plainly shows that you believe in anything your spoon fed instead of asking why. Also as i said it wasn't an attack on Evil government, if i wanted to attack "evil government" I'd talk about how drone strikes only kill an estimated 1 terrorist for every 50 civilian. But i bet you have some way of making that seem OK too

P.S Its nice to know that anonymous monitoring their internet conferences, Waco or the protection of high level criminals, doesn't harm the FBI's credibility. Or is that it worth mentioning as it doesn't fit in with your argument?

I?m not stalking you, I?m reading your posts on this single thread, or as you would like to call it ?spying? on you. I?m not really throwing accusations, just pointing out the repeated times you?ve avoided my counter points to your arguments/sources and instead choose insults and coming out with even more points you want me to counter, honestly I?m having a laugh.

As for your new points you already know the answers, you want to hate on the government using bullshit sources that?s your prerogative, just know when you bring it to an actual debate you?ll get called out and soundly defeated until you resort to? well what you?re doing now.

Oh yes, since it?s so easy I?ll leave with this: I never once said what the government was doing was correct or that it?s not evil (you just falsely attributed that to my arguments) All I was doing was tearing up your sorry excuse of an argument and pointing out just how shit your source was, call it a fun hobby of someone who doesn?t trust everything he?s told and uses critical thinking to judge the government AND bullshit new papers.

 

[flarty]

snip

Running away? from the man who appears to be stalking me? Oh dear someone on the internet i have never met is throwing accusations of my credibility. Jesus if it means that much to you to save face as an anonymous poster on an internet forum, then yes go tell all your buddies i ran away. Or go outside?

Just because i didn't retort in an another analysis of the FBI document doesn't mean i ran away. It means i cant be bothered debating it with yourself. I don't know why i attempted to discuss the matter after you made it so plainly clear you don't mind having your privacy violated on in case your naughty. Plainly shows that you believe in anything your spoon fed instead of asking why. Also as i said it wasn't an attack on Evil government, if i wanted to attack "evil government" I'd talk about how drone strikes only kill an estimated 1 terrorist for every 50 civilian. But i bet you have some way of making that seem OK too

P.S Its nice to know that anonymous monitoring their internet conferences, Waco or the protection of high level criminals, doesn't harm the FBI's credibility. Or is that it worth mentioning as it doesn't fit in with your argument?

I?m not stalking you, I?m reading your posts on this single thread, or as you would like to call it ?spying? on you. I?m not really throwing accusations, just pointing out the repeated times you?ve avoided my counter points to your arguments/sources and instead choose insults and coming out with even more points you want me to counter, honestly I?m having a laugh.

As for your new points you already know the answers, you want to hate on the government using bullshit sources that?s your prerogative, just know when you bring it to an actual debate you?ll get called out and soundly defeated until you resort to? well what you?re doing now.

Oh yes, since it?s so easy I?ll leave with this: I never once said what the government was doing was correct or that it?s not evil (you just falsely attributed that to my arguments) All I was doing was tearing up your sorry excuse of an argument and pointing out just how shit your source was, call it a fun hobby of someone who doesn?t trust everything he?s told and uses critical thinking to judge the government AND bullshit new papers.

Yeah because after uncovering the UK government expense scandal, being the only paper to report on the phone hacking scandal for months, and actually uncovering evidence to support there's nearly $17 trillion dollars placed in off shore accounts for tax evasion purposes, the guardian is a bullshit newspaper.

As for you analysis of the FBI documents, its a sound analysis now looking at it with an open mind, but then again so is mine as it wouldn't of been jumped on by a sound journalism source such as the guardian. The only conclusion i can draw from this discussion is the report is so poorly written that it is left open to interpretation.

Remind me not to enter a discussion with you again, since you in it to win it, not to draw new conclusions and expand your understanding.

P.S Since when have i ran away in this thread, 3 times you say, yet I'm still here! Do you know what running away means?

 

[Reeve]

Sadly this world has come to a "My opinion matters, so cater to me!" type of mentality.

You don't think people have a right to know the truth?

 

[ugeine]

Yeah because after uncovering the UK government expense scandal, being the only paper to report on the phone hacking scandal for months, and actually uncovering evidence to support there's nearly $17 trillion dollars placed in off shore accounts for tax evasion purposes, the guardian is a bullshit newspaper.

As for you analysis of the FBI documents, its a sound analysis now looking at it with an open mind, but then again so is mine as it wouldn't of been jumped on by a sound journalism source such as the guardian. The only conclusion i can draw from this discussion is the report is so poorly written that it is left open to interpretation.

Remind not to enter a discussion with you again, since you in it to win it, not to draw new conclusions and expand your understanding.

Actually it was The Daily Telegraph that uncovered the expenses scandal.

 

[flarty]

Yeah because after uncovering the UK government expense scandal, being the only paper to report on the phone hacking scandal for months, and actually uncovering evidence to support there's nearly $17 trillion dollars placed in off shore accounts for tax evasion purposes, the guardian is a bullshit newspaper.

As for you analysis of the FBI documents, its a sound analysis now looking at it with an open mind, but then again so is mine as it wouldn't of been jumped on by a sound journalism source such as the guardian. The only conclusion i can draw from this discussion is the report is so poorly written that it is left open to interpretation.

Remind not to enter a discussion with you again, since you in it to win it, not to draw new conclusions and expand your understanding.

Actually it was The Daily Telegraph that uncovered the expenses scandal.

I'm sure it was Heather Brooke who is a Guardian Journalist. She might have worked for the Daily telegraph before, either way i'm sure such a journalist would not work for a bullshit newspaper

 

[ugeine]

I'm sure it was Heather Brooke who is a Guardian Journalist. She might have worked for the Daily telegraph before, either way i'm sure such a journalist would not work for a bullshit newspaper

Oh yeah, Heather Brooke was involved in the original FOI requests (along with Jon Ungoed-Thomas and The Sunday Telegraph's Ben Leapman), but it was The Telegraph that first obtained the leaked expenses documents detailing MPs' second home claims.

I don't agree with a lot of what gets written in that newspaper either, but they were bang on the money with that.

 

[flarty]

I'm sure it was Heather Brooke who is a Guardian Journalist. She might have worked for the Daily telegraph before, either way i'm sure such a journalist would not work for a bullshit newspaper

Oh yeah, Heather Brooke was involved in the original FOI requests (along with Jon Ungoed-Thomas and The Sunday Telegraph's Ben Leapman), but it was The Telegraph that first obtained the leaked expenses documents detailing MPs' second home claims.

I don't agree with a lot of what gets written in that newspaper either, but they were bang on the money with that.

Yeah they seem extremely right wing when I've read it. Dont get me wrong the guardian is very left, but they seem to have good standard of investigative journalism going on, plus Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell do columns that are worth a laugh.

 

[DocMcCray]

Sadly this world has come to a "My opinion matters, so cater to me!" type of mentality.

You don't think people have a right to know the truth?

Not in the way that people feel they are entitled too. First of all, in cases like this, information is a privledge. The people have actually have the right to know are those who are involved in the trial, IE the judge, the attorneys and the jury. The original poster stated "Show me proof!" as in it was up to her to arrest/try/and sentence to accused.

You do have the right ask. By the same token those with the information have the right to refuse to give information, especially since you are not in the trial portion of this incident (I'm assuming.)