There are gaping holes in the official story of the Boston bombings.
We are asked to believe that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was identified by the Russian government as an extremist Dagestani or Chechen Islamist terrorist, and they were so concerned about it that in late 2010 they asked the US government to take action. At that time, the US and Russia did not normally have a security cooperation relationship over the Caucasus, particularly following the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. For the Russians to ask the Americans for assistance, Tsarnaev must have been high on their list of worries.
In early 2011 the FBI interview Tsarnaev and trawl his papers and computers but apparently – remarkably for somebody allegedly radicalised by internet – the habitually paranoid FBI find nothing of concern.
So far, so weird. But now this gets utterly incredible. In 2012 Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who is of such concern to Russian security, is able to fly to Russia and pass through the airport security checks of the world’s most thoroughly and brutally efficient security services without being picked up. He is then able to proceed to Dagestan – right at the heart of the world’s heaviest military occupation and the world’s most far reaching secret police surveillance – again without being intercepted, and he is able there to go through some form of terror training or further Islamist indoctrination. He then flies out again without any intervention by the Russian security services.
That is the official story and I have no doubt it did not happen. I know Russia and I know the Russian security services. Whatever else they may be, they are extremely well-equipped, experienced and efficient and embedded into a social fabric accustomed to cooperation with their mastery. This scenario is simply impossible in the real world.
We have, by the official account, the involvement of the two Tsarnaev brothers, the FBI and the Russian security services. The FBI have a massive recent record of running agent provocateur operations to entrap gullible Muslims into terrorism. The Russian security services have form on false flag Chechen bombings. Where the truth lies may be difficult to dig out. But the above official version is not true.
This story gets better everyday! And who said all the facts are in? Oh I think he went to bed.
It’s interesting that the family believed in a mass 9/11 conspiracy.
Spalding,
Well there’s conspiracies in all walks of life,relationships,countries and systems isn’t there?
Why do countries have so many secret agencies and laws?
To uphold Truth?…sure sure…
The major flaw in your posts tonight is simply this:
How on earth can you call for rushing in new laws against civil liberties( earned over centuries of struggle and Reason) whilst at the same time ask us all here to calm down because the full truth of Boston hasn’t yet emerged?
It’s all very shrill and hysterical thereby countermanding of your own main point.
Can i interest you in a nice bridge i have for sale?
You didn’t read all my posts, or perhaps I didn’t make points clear as I’ve diving to tangent after tangent all day with another. I don’t want any civil liberties wiped out, nor do I want instant legislation passed. Furthermore I fear for my own civil liberties with the growing tide of Islamization. I had real questions like how do you protect the public in new circumstances never encountered before? Care to answer?
More interesting stuff:
One of the comments by Jon Talakki on this MotherJones article (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-bombing-tweets#comment-871081310):
“3) Also the bombs look like they exploded from behind a building wall, not from a backpack left on the ground. The Flickr picture shows trace of exploded concrete going outward from the wall, and that’s also consistent with the powdery smoke that stayed in the air for a while afterwards.”
That’s Dzhokar’s bomb, or what is supposed to be Dzhokar’s bomb. The trouble with that is that bomb was placed on the railing next to the curb, about a foot off the ground – here:
Placement of Dzhokar’s alleged bomb – the second huge explosion which made the big dust cloud:http://localtvktvi.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/suspect-2.jpg?w=660 with Dzhokar in white cap in background. The explosion and dust cloud is not near the curb, it’s a lot closer to the building, and the fireball is behind, not in front of, the crowd: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/boston-marathon-explosions-map/images/blast2.jpg
And on close examination in photoshop, the pic of Dzhorkar running away without his backpack does appear to have been photoshopped as per this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7-fDFZF9h8Y In addition, some of the bricks behind his left upper arm look odd.
and this comment:
“Has anyone pointed out the rather extreme incongruity of the store window glass and debris on the sidewalk? It is obviously all blown outward onto the sidewalk TOWARD the alleged site of the bombing. And not just a little bit – it spreads about 15 feet out and the quantity of glass suggests that the whole window blew out onto the sidewalk. If the only bomb was on the sidewalk, that, of course, would be extremely unlikely to impossible. Here is a better view of it from the same series of photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8652831303/in/photostream/
(source: http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/boston-bombing-third-man-with-craft-international-ops-carrying-two-bags-others-quickly-leave/?replytocom=59567#respond)
Finally: Look at the guy standing here with the backpack – dark skinned – marked by red line – standing close to the building: http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-19.jpg?w=350&h=614 Same guy, a couple of minutes after the second blast, without backpack:http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/agents.jpg?w=468&h=434
At this point, I’m not sure what to think about this. From the kid brother’s behavior post blast and the things I’ve noted above, it seems to me unlikely that his backpack contained the bomb which caused the second blast, and it’s also odd that he was shot numerous times while unarmed at the boat – if he had no guns, there’s no way he could fire at police, is there? His “Islamic radicalization” is really up for grabs – it looks like he was a party-loving pothead, and none of his friends in high school or college believe that he could do that which he’s being accused of, as being totally out of character.
His brother is another story, I saw his youtube site before it got taken down, and saw Shaykh Feiz Muhammad’s site as well, and the stuff about jihad I saw in both places – plus what has been said by the FBI and the imam at his mosque – makes a really strong case for him being someone who could do this sort of thing. Perhaps he was being run by the FBI in a sting and things went awry – or perhaps he was far too low profile for the FSB to watch him when he went to Dagestan… That’s a bit of a mystery.
As for the FBI/national security apparatus being caught flat-footed yet again by a Sunni terrorist – if that is in fact the case – it might be explained by this: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3672/muslim-brotherhood-us-government Aside from that, there’s always gross incompetence, bureaucratic turf (and secrets) protection, or both, which might provide an explanation for why this happened if it’s legit and not a “false flag” event.
As for “shoes dropping”, this is like Imelda Marcos’ closet:
Still yet another lie from the FBI: “April 25, 2013 (LD) – It is now confirmed that Russian investigators contacted the FBI at least as early as 2011 in regards to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and again just 6 months before the Boston attacks. Additionally, it is now revealed that both the FBI and CIA had Tsarnaev on at least 2 terrorist watch lists, contradicting previous FBI statements that the case was “closed” after not finding “any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/boston-truth-both-fbi-cia-watched-boston-bombing-suspects-for-years/5332942
“But nonetheless that Russia invaded Georgia is undeniable.”
I was there, and I deny this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbtxJyI9RIU
Respectfully,
Patrick Downey
Moscow
Neverending fun and amusement:
“At the disposal of “Izvestia” has documents Counterintelligence Department Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, confirming that the Georgian organization “Fund of Caucasus”, which cooperates with the U.S. non-profit organization “Jamestown” (the board of directors of NGOs previously entered one of the ideologists of U.S. foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski), was engaged in recruiting residents North Caucasus to work in the interests of the United States and Georgia.
According to the reports of Colonel Chief Directorate Counterintelligence Department Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia Gregory Chanturia to the Minister of Internal Affairs Irakli Garibashvili, “Caucasian fund” in cooperation with the Foundation “Jamestown” in the summer of 2012 conducted workshops and seminars for young people of the Caucasus, including its Russian part. Some of them [were] attended [by] Tsarnaev Tamerlane, who was in Russia from January to July 2012.” (source: http://izvestia.ru/news/549252)
See also http://izvestia.ru/news/549400 and http://izvestia.ru/news/549318
Well done, streamfortyseven.
This whole story stinks to high heaven.
‘Furthermore I fear for my own civil liberties with the growing tide of Islamophobia’.
Fixed that for you, Spalding.
As Craig moves us on with “And now for something completely different”, and the thread degenerates into the usual mess, this from Sibel Edmonds, yesterday:
Boston Terror Update 2-April 25: The Syria Objective is Nearly Accomplished?
Thursday, 25. April 2013
New Iraq WMD “Curveball-Style” Accusation against Syria, Giving Russia a Way Out & the Evacuation of Additional Russian-Caucasus Citizens from Syria
During my April 22 interview for Boiling Frogs Post EyeOpener Report (See here) I provided three possible US objectives associated with the Boston Terror incident. I emphasized the first possible scenario as the most likely: Removing Russia as the obstacle in invading Syria. I pointed out that to achieve this objective a back-door deal could have been struck with Russia. What sort of a deal? Here is what I hypothesized:
1- Using this home-made incident the United States could temporarily switch its alliance with and the portrayal of factions in Caucasus-USA-created Islamic Terror Cells in Caucasus and Central Asia in the Great Game Scheme against Russia. Overnight, with the designed-terrorist attack, the US made the factions switch from Freedom Fighting Rebels to Hottest Terrorist Cells associated with al-Qaeda.
2- The Russians would stand back on Syria, and remove themselves as the obstacle in US intended invasion of Syria. In return, the United States and EU, would support Russia in a new battle against the factions in Caucasus. Meaning: Russians’ soon-to-come “house cleaning” domestic battles would not be ostracized by the international community as ‘Human Rights Violations,’ but supported as ‘Russia taking positive steps in counterterrorism efforts to wipe out radical Islamic Terrorists.’
Here are a few developments today pointing to possible validity of the above hypothesis.
The New Iraq WMD “Curveball-Style” Accusation against Syria
Defense Secretary Hagel: Syria used chemical weapons
The United States Department of Defense says they suspect Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on a “small scale” in that country’s ongoing civil war. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made the claim Thursday while speaking in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, adding that the American intelligence community has determined “with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.”
US President Barack Obama said previously that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a “red line” that could trigger US reaction if crossed. On Thursday Rodriguez wrote on behalf of the administration that “physiological samples” has led the White House to reassess the claims that Assad has used chemical warfare. Christiane Amanpour, the chief international correspondent for CNN, said that sources have told her that physicians working with the Free Syrian Army obtained blood samples from chemical warfare victims and provided them to US intelligence along with soil samples collected from the earth.
…
And what has been Russia’s response so far? Overtly, not much, well, except for this:
More People of Russia, CIS Countries Evacuated from Syria
Russian authorities on Wednesday confirmed that more than 100 citizens of Russia and of members on the Commonwealth of Independent States were evacuated from Syria and they in the same day boarded a plane to head for home.
“An IL-62 plane left Latakia for Moscow with 104 people onboard, ” said Irina Rossius, a spokeswoman for the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry. The plane, with passengers mostly women and children, would arrive in Moscow at about midnight local time ( 2000 GMT). Latakia is a port city in Syria.
…
However, let’s talk about ‘not so overtly’ shall we? A while back the United States provided the Russians with a possible way out- for getting out of the way of Washington’s invasion plans. Here is what I am talking about:
Assad’s use of the chemical weapons. . . violates the warnings made privately to Assad by Russia. The Russian caution towards Assad about chemical weapons was noted by Vitaly Naumkin, director of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences and a Russian expert on the Middle East, in response to a question at a security conference here organized by the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank.
The crisis should convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that it’s time to abandon his support for Assad and begin to work for a political transition in Syria. Assad is apparently so desperate that he has ignored warning about the chemical weapons not just from Washington, but also from Moscow. Will Putin really allow the Syrian dictator to use weapons of mass destruction in defiance of Russia?
…
Not only that. Russia is also establishing the planned-parallel between the US War on Terror and the Russian War on Terror. Basically, he is saying: ‘Okay guys, now it is our turn to deal with ‘OUR’ terrorists who now suddenly share ties with your terrorists.’
Putin Urges West to Close Ranks against Terrorism
Answering a question about his attitude toward the Boston bombers, who were of Russian origin, Putin said extremism had no nationality.
The root causes of terrorism were not in nationality of faith, but extremist sentiment, Putin said, adding joint efforts should be made to fight it.
Putin, who was holding his first question-and-answer session with the public since returning to the Kremlin last May, said Russia was also a target of international terrorism. “This tragedy must unite us in countering the common threats,” he said.
…
…and Washington is already laying ground for US ‘temporarily’ backing Russians in cracking down on Caucasus’ terrorists:
Rohrabacher to pursue working with Russia
U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Costa Mesa) will chair a meeting Friday in Washington, D.C., to pursue the proposal he announced in Laguna last week about joining with Russia to combat radical Islam.
Rohrabacher chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats.”We need to work with Russia to fight radical Islam,” Rohrabacher said at the April 19 meeting of the Laguna Beach Rotary Club. “They are doing things I can’t imagine an American doing. They slaughter innocent people without going into combat — they even slaughter their own people.”
…
“As we pull out of Afghanistan, it behooves us to work with Russia, the central Asian Republics, and those anti-Taliban elements inside Afghanistan, to ensure that the realm of radical Islamic terrorism will not dramatically expand its power base and thus pose an even greater threat to the good people of the world,” he said in a press release issued Sunday.
…
In the next few days we’ll be witnessing major developments on the Syrian front. Our direct military attack- the invasion- is about to begin. With Russian silence, the sudden removal of Russia as an obstacle in our invasion of Syria, think Boston Terror, and think Chechen-Caucasus-Russian angles scripted into the event.
Also, in the next few weeks we’ll be witnessing, reading and hearing about a new heated war within the borders of Russian territory-the Caucasus. The Russian raids will be portrayed here at home as ‘Russian counterterrorism efforts again Radical Islamic Terror.’ The Russian domestic raids will be characterized as another battle front against Al-Qaeda.
Now, let’s watch the events unfold with critical eyes and minds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/us/officers-killing-spurred-pursuit-in-boston-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Frazer @ 5:30
Triple-lock holster, Dude.
Hey Cats Eye,
I’m not experiencing Islamophobia, and you should read some about the people who coined the term. If I have the ‘phobia’ then why did I marry a Muslim?
Dr. Hamid’s concept of a circle with bands is a great one. On the outer band you have ‘Cultural Muslims’, then ‘Ritual Muslims’ (note that this is hopefully where most everyday Muslims are). Then ‘Theological Muslims’, ‘Radical Muslims’, and finally ‘Terrorists’. At Theological is where many of the problems start with current mainstream educational systems which encourage Sharia, and the so called Moderates saying nothing when terrorists attack which is basically supporting. The idea here is to gradually help the inner bands see that violence and sharia is not the solution, and over a period of time help to move them to the outer bands of the circle. If you read up on his theories, he gives SOLUTIONS on how to do this.
Unlike anyone here can do. You can whine all you want about conspiracy and big brother is coming, but I asked you some straight forward questions and they really went unanswered and more complaining and tangents were brought up….
Spalding,
So…what percentage of Muslims worldwide are actively pursuing a violent path,and what percentage are just ordinary folk just very pissed off at the Americans and her European “allies” kicking the shit out of their lands for centuries,but who would not resort to violence?
A tiny percentage of the former i’d suggest.
And conversely,what percentage of Americans,do you think,who couldn’t locate,say,Iran on a map have bought into the MSM NeoCon insanity of “there’s millions of these jihadist Muslims out there and we need to kill hundreds of thousands of them with drones”?
Jive’s,
I believe the ‘terrorists’, and ‘radicals’ are small in majority. I don’t have any a grave fear about terrorism, as events here will be few in the realm of scope vs frequency. But I could be wrong as most of threat will most likely be homegrown and not considered in the classical definition of International Terrorism.
What I do worry about is Sharia and the fact that most of it is based in Hadiths not the Qur’an. It’s also centuries old, and has this to offer:
1. A women’s word is only half that of a man. A women who commits adultery most be stoned to death (the 4 major books on Islamic jurisprudence only differ to how big the stones should be).
2. Homosexuality is a disease, and therefore those who practice it should be hanged.
3. A non Muslim’s worth (blood money), is only worth half that of a believer.
4. All conquered people (non believers) have 3 choices: Convert, pay Jizza (and embarrassing tax designed to humiliate), or death.
5. Rape, slavery, and underage marriage.
6. Female castration.
7. Beating of wives and women.
8. Death to Apostates (those who were Muslim who convert to another belief).
And it’s growing, right in Great Britain among other Western societies. I have read many of the articles about what is happening in East London. One of the leaders has said that sharia is the only way forward, and whether it is spread peacefully or by force it will spread.
As I stated yesterday, we wouldn’t be on ‘their lands’ if there wasn’t a threat and we weren’t attacked. We really didn’t care too much about Afghanistan and let the Taliban have it, and we watched all their barbaric atrocities against OTHER MUSLIMS. Do you think if we weren’t on their lands the violence would stop? Do you follow the massive casualties and brutality of Muslim on Muslim violence that occur? They never protest that. You never hear of a prominent cleric issuing a fatwa against it, condemning those who kill and basically stating that killers will not see ‘paradise’ do you?
Can you tell me the benefits of a sharia based society? Can you tell me those who live in one have individaul liberties that we do?
As for Americans being stupid, and too dumb to know where Iran is, what were you telling me yesterday about stereotyping?
“Examining Sharia law carefully reveals many important facts that cast doubts as to whether it is part of Islam.
First, the expressions of “Islamic Sharia ” and “Islamic law” were never used in the Quran or in the Sunna of the Prophet Mohammed. They were invented after his death. Since most of the details and structure of Sharia law such as the rules of jurisprudence and interpretations of the religious text were made after the revelation of Islam was completed, it is hard to consider Sharia as part of the religion itself. In other words, if Sharia law with its details was part of the Islamic religion it should have been noted before the end of the revelation. The Quran states clearly that Islam has been completed as a religion far before the invention of the ” Sharia law” (Quran 5:3).”
Spalding,
I wasn’t stereotyping i was posing a hypothetical question.
Do you seriously believe the USA and her historic allies are only in these lands to promote “Freedom and Democracy” and to alleviate threats? You dont think they are there for a neo-Imperialist agenda of resource stripping as the American Empire runs out of gas and other vital resources?
Further to your other points: You can find any religious screed you like and when fallen into the wrong hands or selectively interpreted without context you could argue the same points with most religions.Consider the damage over centuries when other religious texts were applied as doctrine and the subsequent carnage.
By the way Spalding,do you consider incidents like Sandy Hook,Columbine etc as terrorism?How would you differentiate Domestic from International terrorism?
Not YOUR Islamophobia, Spalding, American Islamophobia! That’ll affect your civil liberties. (Islamophobia carefully nurtured by certain vested interests, of course …)
“And it’s growing, right in Great Britain among other Western societies.”
I read several right-wing sites based in the USA. And they’ve been spreading that story about Britain being over-run with Sharia. And they believe it – and clearly you do too. But it’s not true.
One other small thing. I’m not British, I’m Irish. And several others here are not British either. So temper your language accordingly.
And leave out the clichés about “you’d all be speaking German”. They’re long past their sell-by date. Not to mention that they’re not true. It was the Russians who stopped Hitler, not the Americans. And Russia lost 20 million people in the effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
Meanwhile, while your country was stomping all over Iraq, most Americans couldn’t find Iraq on a map. Face facts.
and
“Two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 still cannot find Iraq on a map (2006)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/
It gets even worse
“The study found that less than six months after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, 33 percent could not point out Louisiana on a U.S. map.”
So you can stop waving the word ‘stereotypes’ around, Spalding.
Yes other religious teachings can be violent, and if you look at the Bible there is much there that could be used. In the 90’s it seemed the worst threat by those who want to change my way of life came from cults, like Aum Shinrikyo or the Branch Davidians, and the actuality of them changing anything was very small. Most main stream religions have modern interpretations, respect the rights of others, tolerate other beliefs, and don’t seek to impose a law on what I consider modern society. Would you prefer a non secularized government? It amazes me that in our PC world when confronted with the reality of what these radicals believe we offer appeasement (didn’t England try that with Hitler?’, and if we are remotely critical that term ‘Islamaphobic’ is used by the so called moderates. If other mainstream religions: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. sought the same things would we be so PC?
As for imperialism, yes most western countries all guilty. I’m assuming your in the UK, and look at the track record there (arguably worse than the USA historically). I mentioned in a long reply yesterday that we do have an imperialist agenda. What I also mentioned is that if we had no dependence on oil and weren’t in those ‘occupied’ lands that the violence would not stop, and the imperialistic agenda of radicalized Islam would not stop. I also believe that putting a conventional force in these places usually adds to the divide. If any of my country men has their blood spilled in these places then it’s just wrong, and a waste. It doesn’t address the true issues that exist in a growing East vs West culture war.
“By the way Spalding,do you consider incidents like Sandy Hook,Columbine etc as terrorism?How would you differentiate Domestic from International terrorism?”
I actually had courses on terrorism. Would I define Sandy Hook or Columbine acts of terror? Yes, but they don’t fit the classical definitions of International Terrorism. The best definitions offered, in my opinion, was given by someone I studied under (with number 2 being his refined doctoral argument):
1. “The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents usually intended to influence an audience.”
2. “The repeated use of politically motivated violence with coercive intent, by non‑state actors, that affects more than one state.”
Spalding,
Thanks for your reply.
Do you consider only “non-state actors” as within that 2nd definition?
That’s awesome your Irish. I’ve lived there a few times on extended business. I love your country.
“And leave out the clichés about “you’d all be speaking German”. They’re long past their sell-by date. Not to mention that they’re not true. It was the Russians who stopped Hitler, not the Americans. And Russia lost 20 million people in the effort.”
Yeah and who was first on his list after France? The Battle of Atlantic/ North Atlantic? The Lend Lease Act? These happened just before or during Barbarossa. Which lead to Operation Sea Lion, and the Battle of Britain…. Japan attacked us. Not Germany, but we agreed Germany should be taken out first. How about those ‘non aggression’ treaties? How about the split up of Poland with Russia? And how about your Czechoslovakia and ‘appeasement’.
“Meanwhile, while your country was stomping all over Iraq, most Americans couldn’t find Iraq on a map. Face facts.”
That may be so, and we have a generation now who recall or were even too young to know about the 2003 invasion (or care), like 18 year olds who were 9 or 10. That range you put up, while alarming call that an educational problem. My daughter is only 8, do you think she knows where Iraq is? Do you think she cares? She was born in 2004. Yeah we did our best to educate here about our Imperialistic ways and Iraq when she popped out. Also we’re much bigger in population, land mass, and even diversity. I’ve driven from east to west in you country in about 3 hours. My state alone is bigger than your country.
Really, you keep trying to blame me or my country for all the world’s issues. How about your occupation by England? How about years of terrorism? How about religion being a factor or at least a dividing line? Those who (on both sides) committed acts terror at least occasionally had the courtesy to call in their attacks….
Jives,
For it to be ‘International’ yes.
There are other incidents of terrorism that by those definitions would not be classified as ‘International’. Those definitions while they can class things in or out like the Sandy Hook shootings vs 9/11, they don’t always work. Take the Oklahoma City bombing. Timothy McVeigh. He was radicalized, he also believed in his country (according to him), and his violence was politically motivated. However there was no other state providing weapons, support, or an agenda. Truly homegrown, and up until 9/11, the worst act of terror in the US.
Spalding,
Do you believe the FBI/CIA have ever used patsies and are engaged in agent provocateur actions?
Do you believe they are also involved in “black ops” where even a vast array of State and Federal agencies might be out of the loop completely whilst actually believing they are at the centre of the loop?
It’s certainly possible. There are specialized groups who don’t report through a normal chain of command. And most certainly these groups are always going to operate quietly and have plausible dependability.
This story really got me.. Take a look at a local police detective in the Newport News, VA area. There were 7 (at that time) sailors whom were picked up questioned for the violent rape and murder of a women at an apartment complex. These guys were young and in the Military so they were very susceptible to doing as they were told. Over hours of of questioning, with the audio being turned off by this detective, they were being lead and coached to what to say. They were all convicted even though there was little to no physical evidence based on their confessions which were coached out by this detective. He convinced them that if they confessed, and they had no choice but to, then he would make sure they would get out of jail… It turns out a violent felon who was in jail at the time, and had a B&E and assault charge (on that same street) confessed to doing the crime, and these guys had nothing to do with it. The prosecutor simply lumped this guy in with the original 7 and closed the case. These 7 guys fought for years to get out of prison and have their names cleared. It’s sad because even through executive clemency, these guys are now registered sex offenders, and they can’t live in a normal residential area, let alone get a job. Meanwhile, after this detective of 20 years retired, it was discovered that he would find these types of people. Grill them and coach them on what to say, and in some cases take money in return for his promises of a reduced sentence (which he had no way to guarantee). He’s now in jail, but he was an officer of the law and he ruined many lives for money and fame. That’s just one officer, acting alone on his own agenda. So yeah, there could be conspiracies, but it takes more than one person to commit a conspiracy.
I should mention that a historical conspiracy I tend to believe in is the sinking of the USS Maine, which helped us enter the Spanish American War.
“Also we’re much bigger in population, land mass, and even diversity. I’ve driven from east to west in you country in about 3 hours. My state alone is bigger than your country.”
And your point is?
Spalding,
FYI:
http://www.amazon.com/NATOs-Secret-Armies-Operation-Contemporary/dp/0714685003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
“That range you put up, while alarming call that an educational problem.”
That’s exactly what I’m calling it Spalding. An educational problem. Most Americans have no idea what’s outside their own borders. But they think they can dictate what’s best for people outside those borders.
And that makes me angry.
Anyway, I’m going to watch a DVD. I don’t want to go to bed angry.
My point is if we took that same poll (remember a poll, which is a small sample from the general population), and did it in your country on an adjusted scale based on population within that range, you might be surprised of the results.
Social Science statistics (which a poll is usually not) can be construed to fit practically any case (it’s not based on a pure science). I tend to believe more in academic statistics in the realm of a natural science that one dealing with a social science. Even in both of those, there is still the human factors for error, sampling size, ranges, scope, longevity, etc…