Boston

User Forum Topic
Submitted by desmond on April 18, 2013 - 7:25pm

I am sure most have seen the videos of the two suspects I.D. by the FBI carrying backpacks through the crowd. To me, the backpacks do not look heavy enough to be carrying the explosives used. Look at the one guy that has it on one shoulder. I know when I carry my backpack on one shoulder the damn thing falls off with a few lbs. in it. He is not putting much effort holding it on for how heavy it must have been? And are these guys dumb enough not to realize everything is on surveillance cameras?

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 18, 2013 - 7:50pm.

Tough call to make. I very much understand that it is important to not release important information until the guys are caught. I am very skeptical of what has been released, and presume it is a small fraction of the real story.

Submitted by SK in CV on April 18, 2013 - 7:53pm.

False flag. Those amputees are all actors. We're not being told the truth.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on April 18, 2013 - 10:21pm.

I think you have to have a flag (or some indicator) to be a false flag.

Submitted by desmond on April 19, 2013 - 5:57am.

I was wrong on those two. Hard to understand what motivation they would have. I have for a long time thought that more people would start doing more desperate acts because of the economy. But I never thought bombings from terrorist would happen on the streets. Sucks. I am not a worry wart, but this is troubling.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on April 19, 2013 - 9:27am.

desmond wrote:
I was wrong on those two. Hard to understand what motivation they would have. I have for a long time thought that more people would start doing more desperate acts because of the economy. But I never thought bombings from terrorist would happen on the streets. Sucks. I am not a worry wart, but this is troubling.

Personally, I see it as 2 disaffected youths who were bitter and depressed and grew up listening to uncle Yuri's stories of freedom fighting for Chechnya.

I would be happy to be wrong.
I would imagine this to be a tea partier or an extremist muslim.
However, it feels very loserish and bitter.

More like Columbine than 911.

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 19, 2013 - 9:48am.

Interesting you imagine this to be a tea partier.

So there are instances of tea partiers killing people?

Submitted by urbanrealtor on April 19, 2013 - 10:30am.

SD Realtor wrote:
Interesting you imagine this to be a tea partier.

So there are instances of tea partiers killing people?

Not per se (as far as I am aware).

There are instances of terrorist acts committed by anti-government fundamentalists who claim constitutional justification.

The tea party movement does fall under the rubric of anti government constitutional fundamentalism.

And most fundamentalist movements have common threads.

People use a religious text that explicitly forbids killing and suicide to justify suicide bombings.
Similarly, people use the US constitution to justify militant violence in some sort of defense of the constitution (eg: OKC). Mind you the government systems being attacked have been upheld by the SCOTUS whose authority is explicit in article 3.

The original tea party (as committed by the sons of liberty) was a violent uprising against non-representative authority.

So its not a big leap to half-expect anti-government violence from a fundamentalist group that glorifies past anti-government violence.

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 19, 2013 - 10:46am.

ummm okay.

However in this instance you were specific to name the tea party. In this present day the tea party as you referenced is a movement that was recently formed, not the original tea party. I just think it is interesting that you imagined the murderers in Boston could have come from a group that has no history of that at all, and lumped the tea party with other groups that have decades of experience with terrorism and murders.

To my knowledge the tea party never has committed a single terrorist act in the name of constitutional justification.

Yet it seems interesting that they are characterized by opponents, and even hoped to be that sort of group.

Submitted by spdrun on April 19, 2013 - 11:11am.

More like Columbine than 911

You hit it on the head with that statement. As well as being disgusting, the act was also totally impractical. There was a lot of sympathy for the Chechen cause in the US during the Chechen Wars. Guess what? Not any more!

They've just set back their supposed cause by 50 years. Fucking idiots -- this is roughly the equivalent of the IRA bombing a firemen's bar in NYC.

Submitted by NotCranky on April 19, 2013 - 11:29am.

Who knows what motivates them. Part of the incentive could be that they could be sick of what we are doing in the world, perhaps specifically " collateral damage". Maybe if they could have used cluster bombs or drones, they would have done that instead. Or going back a few years, napalm and agent orange, Motive, disillusionment and fantasy mixed into one big tragedy.

Submitted by spdrun on April 19, 2013 - 11:56am.

So attacking one of the more liberal, educated cities in the US, where people would otherwise be decently sympathetic to their cause is the solution? I stand by my "idiots" expletive.

Submitted by NotCranky on April 19, 2013 - 12:11pm.

spdrun wrote:
So attacking one of the more liberal, educated cities in the US, where people would otherwise be decently sympathetic to their cause is the solution? I stand by my "idiots" expletive.

Nobody said anything about them being rational. Examples set influence the weak more than they do the strong.Maybe they are disgusted with liberal and conservative alike. That's really not that hard to envision.

Submitted by ltsddd on April 19, 2013 - 4:02pm.

How and why did we allow people like this into our country. Not only she doubts her nephews were involved in the bombings but also the story about the 9-11 attacks.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/susp...

Submitted by SK in CV on April 19, 2013 - 4:03pm.

ltsdd wrote:
How and why did we allow people like this into our country. Not only she doubts her nephews were involved in the bombings but also the story about the 9-11 attacks.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/suspect-aunt-says-she-suspicious-investigation-190616201.html

What do you mean by "like this"?

Submitted by ltsddd on April 19, 2013 - 4:08pm.

what part of "like this" do you want me to explain?

Submitted by SK in CV on April 19, 2013 - 4:13pm.

Do you mean that prospective immigrants should all be asked the following question?

"when your nephews set off a bomb at the boston marathon, will you be supportive of them?"

And if they say yes, don't let them in. And if they say no, don't let them in because her nephews are terrorists.

Does that work for you?

Submitted by ltsddd on April 19, 2013 - 4:33pm.

SK in CV wrote:
Do you mean that prospective immigrants should all be asked the following question?

"when your nephews set off a bomb at the boston marathon, will you be supportive of them?"

And if they say yes, don't let them in. And if they say no, don't let them in because her nephews are terrorists.

Does that work for you?

In your mind, the 9-11 attack was a fabrication? Planes flew into buildings resulted in thousands of deaths were just a setup?

Submitted by SK in CV on April 19, 2013 - 5:15pm.

ltsdd wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
Do you mean that prospective immigrants should all be asked the following question?

"when your nephews set off a bomb at the boston marathon, will you be supportive of them?"

And if they say yes, don't let them in. And if they say no, don't let them in because her nephews are terrorists.

Does that work for you?

In your mind, the 9-11 attack was a fabrication? Planes flew into buildings resulted in thousands of deaths were just a setup?

So now you're just making shit up. I didn't say anything like that, and neither did she. So I'll ask again, what exactly do you mean by "like this"?

Submitted by ltsddd on April 19, 2013 - 5:29pm.

SK in CV wrote:
ltsdd wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
Do you mean that prospective immigrants should all be asked the following question?

"when your nephews set off a bomb at the boston marathon, will you be supportive of them?"

And if they say yes, don't let them in. And if they say no, don't let them in because her nephews are terrorists.

Does that work for you?

In your mind, the 9-11 attack was a fabrication? Planes flew into buildings resulted in thousands of deaths were just a setup?

So now you're just making shit up. I didn't say anything like that, and neither did she. So I'll ask again, what exactly do you mean by "like this"?

Maybe I read too much into her quote regarding her having "doubts about the story behind the 9-11 attacks". Those guys were all angels.

Submitted by ltsddd on April 19, 2013 - 5:41pm.

SK in CV wrote:
what exactly do you mean by "like this"?

It had nothing to do with her ethnicity, nationality or religious belief. It had to do with her mindset and doubts regarding the 9-11 attacks.

Submitted by SK in CV on April 19, 2013 - 5:42pm.

ltsdd wrote:
Maybe I read too much into her quote regarding her having "doubts about the story behind the 9-11 attacks". Those guys were all angels.

That puts her opinion right in line with a significant number of americans. Should they all have their citizenship revoked? Five years ago, almost 40% of Canadians were unsure that AQ carried out the attack. So should we lock our northern border?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_pol...

Submitted by ltsddd on April 19, 2013 - 5:46pm.

SK in CV wrote:
ltsdd wrote:
Maybe I read too much into her quote regarding her having "doubts about the story behind the 9-11 attacks". Those guys were all angels.

That puts her opinion right in line with a significant number of americans. Should they all have their citizenship revoked? Five years ago, almost 40% of Canadians were unsure that AQ carried out the attack. So should we lock our northern border?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

That's fair enough. So, in your opinion, who do you think was behind the 9/11 attack?

Submitted by SK in CV on April 19, 2013 - 5:49pm.

ltsdd wrote:

That's fair enough. So, in your opinion, who do you think was behind the 9/11 attack?

Not Saddam Hussein.

Submitted by bobby on April 19, 2013 - 5:55pm.

I wonder if she has a job? Her coworkers will unlikely be very friendly to her now.

Submitted by ltsddd on April 19, 2013 - 6:26pm.

SK in CV wrote:
ltsdd wrote:

That's fair enough. So, in your opinion, who do you think was behind the 9/11 attack?

Not Saddam Hussein.

You're a real genius.

Submitted by SK in CV on April 19, 2013 - 6:32pm.

ltsdd wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
ltsdd wrote:

That's fair enough. So, in your opinion, who do you think was behind the 9/11 attack?

Not Saddam Hussein.

You're a real genius.

Thanks. Mensa thinks so too. Now go back and read what I wrote, and show me where I said anything remotely resembling a disbelief in the official story.

Submitted by paramount on April 19, 2013 - 9:01pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:

Not per se (as far as I am aware).

There are instances of terrorist acts committed by anti-government fundamentalists who claim constitutional justification.

The tea party movement does fall under the rubric of anti government constitutional fundamentalism.

And most fundamentalist movements have common threads.

People use a religious text that explicitly forbids killing and suicide to justify suicide bombings.
Similarly, people use the US constitution to justify militant violence in some sort of defense of the constitution (eg: OKC). Mind you the government systems being attacked have been upheld by the SCOTUS whose authority is explicit in article 3.

The original tea party (as committed by the sons of liberty) was a violent uprising against non-representative authority.

So its not a big leap to half-expect anti-government violence from a fundamentalist group that glorifies past anti-government violence.

Spoken like a true socialist communist marxist fascist.

Submitted by ltsddd on April 20, 2013 - 7:30am.

SK in CV wrote:
Now go back and read what I wrote, and show me where I said anything remotely resembling a disbelief in the official story.

You're right. You didn't say such thing. You're making shit up if you're saying I accused you of saying such thing.

The fact is this:
1. You had issue with me having issue with letting that woman, who's doubting the 9/11 attacks, into our country (granted, she's a "Canadian").
2. You provided a wiki link to show that that woman is not the only one thinking that
3. Your answer to the question who were behind the 9/11 attack was "not Saddam Hussein".

I know nothing about you. So, please do tell what's the "official story" of the 9/11 that you believe in.

Submitted by desmond on April 20, 2013 - 7:33am.

SK it sounds like you were trying to blame itsdd for a "you people" comment but when ur brought up the Tea Party you had no problem with that?

Submitted by SK in CV on April 20, 2013 - 7:49am.

desmond wrote:
SK it sounds like you were trying to blame itsdd for a "you people" comment but when ur brought up the Tea Party you had no problem with that?

I wasn't blaming him for it. I wanted to know what he meant by it. It's not that complicated.

The tea party comparison didn't go unquestioned.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.