Boston bombings

[Urban Turban]

There is no God but God and Muhammad is his messenger (on whom be peace). I'm no expert on the biographies of all the individual sahabah but as far as I can tell they're all okay with me.

With that said, Urban Turban, please lay off Independent already and start arguing with disbelievers in the ways that are best as we are commanded to.

Asking about the weather is wrong?

 

[islamica]

Female DNA found on Boston bomb as Muslim convert Misha denies links to attacks

THE FBI has found female DNA on at least one of the Boston Marathon bombs, but they have not determined whose it is or if they had a female accomplice.

The presence of genetic material does not necessarily mean a woman helped build the pressure-cooker bombs, said the law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The genetic material could have come from a woman who was in the room where the devices were built, or from a cashier at a store where one of the bomb parts was purchased, the official said.

The test results have prompted investigators to look more closely at women who may have had contact with the alleged bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Investigators are collecting DNA samples from some women who were close to the pair to provide a comparison.

On Monday, investigators visited the Rhode Island home of the family of Katherine Russell, the widow of the elder brother, who was killed in a shoot-out with police on April 19. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was wounded but captured, and faces federal charges of using a weapon of mass destruction.

--

they can take this anyway they want, frame the mother, the wife, sister or anyone they don't like.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Asking about the weather is wrong?

Asking about the weather?? Are you kidding me???

I was actually referring more to your comparing Independent to Pharaoh and calling him a liar and a kafir.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?

Two very disparate commentators, Ali Abunimah and Alan Dershowitz, both raised serious questions over the weekend about a claim that has been made over and over about the bombing of the Boston Marathon: namely, that this was an act of terrorism. Dershowitz was on BBC Radio on Saturday and, citing the lack of knowledge about motive, said (at the 3:15 mark): "It's not even clear under the federal terrorist statutes that it qualifies as an act of terrorism."

Abunimah wrote a superb analysis of whether the bombing fits the US government's definition of "terrorism", noting that "absolutely no evidence has emerged that the Boston bombing suspects acted 'in furtherance of political or social objectives'" or that their alleged act was 'intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.'" Even a former CIA Deputy Director, Phillip Mudd, said on Fox News on Sunday that at this point the bombing seems more like a common crime than an act of terrorism.

Over the last two years, the US has witnessed at least three other episodes of mass, indiscriminate violence that killed more people than the Boston bombings did: the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner in which 19 people (including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords) were shot, six of whom died; the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in which 70 people were shot, 12 of whom died; and the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza in which 26 people (20 of whom were children) were shot and killed. The word "terrorism" was almost never used to describe that indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and none of the perpetrators of those attacks was charged with terrorism-related crimes. A decade earlier, two high school seniors in Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, used guns and bombs to murder 12 students and a teacher, and almost nobody called that "terrorism" either.

In the Boston case, however, exactly the opposite dynamic prevails. Particularly since the identity of the suspects was revealed, the word "terrorism" is being used by virtually everyone to describe what happened. After initially (and commendably) refraining from using the word, President Obama has since said that "we will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had" and then said that "on Monday an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three people at the Boston Marathon". But as Abunimah notes, there is zero evidence that either of the two suspects had any connection to or involvement with any designated terrorist organization.

More significantly, there is no known evidence, at least not publicly available, about their alleged motives. Indeed, Obama himself - in the statement he made to the nation after Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured on Friday night - said that "tonight there are still many unanswered questions" and included this "among" those "unanswered questions":

"Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?"

The overarching principle here should be that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is entitled to a presumption of innocence until he is actually proven guilty. As so many cases have proven - from accused (but exonerated) anthrax attacker Stephen Hatfill to accused (but exonerated) Atlanta Olympic bomber Richard Jewell to dozens if not hundreds of Guantanamo detainees accused of being the "worst of the worst" but who were guilty of nothing - people who appear to be guilty based on government accusations and trials-by-media are often completely innocent. Media-presented evidence is no substitute for due process and an adversarial trial.

But beyond that issue, even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism). But as Obama himself acknowledged, we simply do not know what motivated them (Obama: "Tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?").

It's certainly possible that it will turn out that, if they are guilty, their prime motive was political or religious. But it's also certainly possible that it wasn't: that it was some combination of mental illness, societal alienation, or other form of internal instability and rage that is apolitical in nature. Until their motive is known, how can this possibly be called "terrorism"? Can acts of violence be deemed "terrorism" without knowing the motive?

This is far more than a semantic question. Whether something is or is not "terrorism" has very substantial political implications, and very significant legal consequences as well. The word "terrorism" is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies. For the manipulative use of the word "terrorism", see the scholarship of NYU's Remi Brulin and the second-to-last section here.

I was on Democracy Now this morning discussing many of these issues, as well as the legal and civil libertarian concerns raised by this case, and that segment can be viewed here (a transcript will be posted here later today).

I have just tweeted a link to this article to over a thousand followers.

 

[titus]

You believe that because I think the Boston bombing was indeed committed by Tamerlan and Dzhokar on the basis of the evidence so far - you think that holding this view is itself Islamophobic?

So it seems.

When any act like this is carried out there are many Muslims that immediately want to jump in (before they even know the facts) and "prove" that Muslims did not do it. Then the game becomes finding anyone on the internet that supports their claim (whether it be Alex Jones or David Duke or any other disreputable person) and claim that they are the only ones with the fact and that everyone else in the world is brainwashed.

Not it's time for my amateur psychology: These people are in a deep victim mentality mode. They believe that being a good Muslim today means portraying Muslims of victims of things beyond their control. The bad things that are happening to Muslims around the world are all the result of external forces. They seem to thrive on Muslims being victims and anything that opposes that view (such as 9/11 or Boston) must be false in order to maintain their mindset. The opposite of this is also true, in that if you deny that Muslims were a victim then you are part of the external force and hate Islam.

The next step is to point out Islamaphobia whenever they can and denouncing those who stay silent about it, while at the same time not commenting on men such as Bin Laden and others that preach violence against the West. When they do comment on them it is never to denounce, but in order to keep their false reality, they claim that such men either really work for the enemy to make Muslims look bad, or call them Sheik and say that the West is slandering them and actually hold them up as heroes.

The Ann Coulters of the world are idiots and hypocrites. Out of one side of their mouth they talk about freedom, then out of the other side of their mouth they make it clear it's only intended for people that look and think like them.

More amateur psychology from me: Muslims teach themselves of the superiority of their religion and they teach of the Golden Age when there was an Islamic State. Then they look at the world today and they see the state of Muslims around the world and see that it does not jibe with what they were taught. The easy way out then is to blame external factors. The state of the Muslims of the world is because of the USA, and Israel, and Russia, and whoever else they want to blame. It is never because of anything Muslims have done (except maybe Muslims aren't pious enough and that is why....).

So Independent, by claiming that a couple of Muslims killed Americans it destroys the victim mindset. It turns it on it's head. It lessens their sense of righteousness when exclaiming what victims Muslims are, and therefore makes the person saying it anti-Muslim.

The fact that nothing could be further from the truth is irrelevant.

 

[~Zaria~]

When any act like this is carried out there are many Muslims that immediately want to jump in (before they even know the facts) and "prove" that Muslims did not do it. Then the game becomes finding anyone on the internet that supports their claim (whether it be Alex Jones or David Duke or any other disreputable person) and claim that they are the only ones with the fact and that everyone else in the world is brainwashed.

I think you missed this post:

The interesting part of these 'conspiracy theories' is that they are mostly driven by non-Muslims.

If you consider the videos on YouTube, most of the comments there-under, the various 'conspiracy' web-pages,etc - there are very few Muslims, if any, who are themselves finding the discrepancies with the official story.

So, this is not about trying to defend the alleged bombers simply because they are muslim.

You see, theres a growing number of people who are awakening to the reality of media lies, government agendas and the truth that lies behind the so-called 'War on terror'.

And I find it just amazing, when I see a non-muslim, who has taken the initiative to draw the publics attention to these types of findings - and by doing so, having the indirect effect of clearing the face of islam and bringing focus on the many injustices perpetrated upon the muslim world.

You are right.
That was amateur psychology

 

[Independent]

The interesting part of these 'conspiracy theories' is that they are mostly driven by non-Muslims.

This is true in the west, but what about the Arab world? What happens there? Is this not partly a reflection of language? When you look at figures for percentage of people who believe that 9/11 was a western conspiracy, the highest numbers are in Arab countries.

In the west the spokesman are guys like Alex Jones, David Icke, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Webster Tarpley and others. What's noticeable about them, is that this is their profession. If they don't see an event as a conspiracy, they are out of a job.

The big difference is that, although they may agree with Muslims who believe that there is a conspiracy going on, they draw completely different conclusions about who's responsible. It really is outstanding how the same 'undeniable evidence' leads to so many different ends. They don't really agree with you at all. Their 'official view' is every bit as incompatible with your view as it is with the government's.

For many Americans, it's not about a 'war on Islam' but the old battle between federal control and local freedoms. This makes the US very different from, say, European attitudes and it's a big reason why Europeans are less credulous about conspiracies. Americans score high for belief in a wide range of conspiracies, some of which are frankly bizarre.

 

[جوري]

The New York Times today reports that "United States officials said they were increasingly certain that the two suspects had acted on their own, but were looking for any hints that someone had trained or inspired them." It also reports that "The FBI is broadening its global investigation in search of a motive." There's no reason for the FBI to search for a motive. They should just go talk to Andrew Sullivan. He already found it.
In sum, neither the President nor the FBI - by their own admission - know the motive here nor have evidence showing it, but Andrew Sullivan, along with hordes of others yelling "terrorism" and "jihad", insist that they do. That's the special species of rank irrationality that uniquely shapes public US discourse when the issue is Muslims.

 

[جوري]

I usually forgo comments but liked this one by one of the commentators:
@tweetsub - 2 sides of the same coin.
What Glenn is getting at here is what in security studies is known as the schism between Human Security and National Security. Terrorism, in its classical interpretation (and I acknowledge that there is a clear dispute over how the term is used), is an act of violence in order to advance a political cause within or against a state (National) actor. If there is no political motive or objective, then it is an act of violence against individuals, and is thus a human security issue, not a national security issue; there is no perceived challenge or threat to the state. So, in the strictest literal sense, the Boston attacks were certainly terrifying, but until the motive is ascertained, they cannot be considered terrorism.
It's a similar difference between murder and assassination: JFK was assassinated, Tupac Shakur was murdered.

 

[~Zaria~]

This is true in the west, but what about the Arab world? What happens there? Is this not partly a reflection of language? When you look at figures for percentage of people who believe that 9/11 was a western conspiracy, the highest numbers are in Arab countries.

In the west the spokesman are guys like Alex Jones, David Icke, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Webster Tarpley and others. What's noticeable about them, is that this is their profession. If they don't see an event as a conspiracy, they are out of a job.

The big difference is that, although they may agree with Muslims who believe that there is a conspiracy going on, they draw completely different conclusions about who's responsible. It really is outstanding how the same 'undeniable evidence' leads to so many different ends. They don't really agree with you at all. Their 'official view' is every bit as incompatible with your view as it is with the government's.

For many Americans, it's not about a 'war on Islam' but the old battle between federal control and local freedoms. This makes the US very different from, say, European attitudes and it's a big reason why Europeans are less credulous about conspiracies. Americans score high for belief in a wide range of conspiracies, some of which are frankly bizarre.

^ You are only focussing on the 'big names' in the 'conspiracy world'.

If you do a quick search on the web and on youtube - e.g try: 'Boston Bombings conspiracy' - I promise you, that you will easily find ~90% of the authors/ video-makers to be non-muslim.
Who have nothing to gain - this is not their profession, nor do they have any loyalty to islam.
They are just simple citzens who are seeing the world for what it is, and are making every effort to verify mainstream news for themselves.

The perception is not only a battle for 'local freedoms' as you mention.

It goes far deeper than that.
Once you begin to realise this, you will not turn back.

(Have you watched the videos that I had previously suggested to you, as well as the books?
If not, its never too late.....)

 

[titus]

I think you missed this post:

No, I saw it. You should also know that the people leading the charge for the belief in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and that aliens were captured by the US government in Roswell are mainly non-Muslim also. That doesn't give it any more credence in my mind.

I always know there will be crackpots that will yell conspiracy at every single event like this (see the Newtown shooting as another recent sickening example). I also know that as soon as a Muslim is named as a suspect that forums such as this, and in Muslim populations around the world, the conspiracy machine will go into fifth gear, and the more anti-American government or anti-Israel the person the more likely they will fight to convince others of the conspiracy.

When the bombings occurred I hoped that it was not a Muslim group that was behind it. I knew that if it were that the Muslim haters would come out of the woodworks, but I also knew that too many Muslims would become ostriches with their heads stuck in the stand denying reality. Muslims want to believe that they are the good guys and the others (USA, Israel, "The West") are the bad guys, so when events like this happen in which their black and white view of the world is shaken they revert to distorting facts and reality.

Believe it or not the world is not as cut and dried as some would like to believe. The US government can do very bad things, and it can do very good things. Muslims can do very bad things and can do very good things. That is the way of the world, and trying to cram it into a mold that doesn't fit does nobody any good.

If people are being brainwashed it is not the people watching mass media who believe the official story. It is the men like these two that spent their time watching jihadi videos online and listening to so-called holy men who not only condone but encourage violence against Americans, Jews and anyone else they consider the enemy and it is the people that want to deny reality and facts in order to propagate their inaccurate world view.

I don't tend to see the world in black and white. I know that sometimes my government does reprehensible things and I don't deny it. I don't like it, but I know my history and I do what I can to help ensure it won't happen again, although I am a realist and I know that they will make mistakes from time to time. I don't see the same attitude from many Muslims that post on these forums. Their instinct is to constantly deny the truth use conspiracy theories in order to convert the facts to their world view. I find that dangerous.

 

[جوري]

Problem unfortunately with some of the members here is their clear desire to bring everything down to a low common denominator, not over complicate and not scratch beneath the surface. Perhaps it reflects their educational, political and social stratum- I have no problems with that. I have no problem even with the run of the mill inflammatory and almost theatrical main stream corporate media that feeds it, if they are happy with it and it is happy with them. What I do have a problem with is the childlike intellectual bullying, name calling, injudicious scripts & assumptions, which are somehow to subscribe to or fall under a label or another.
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter who thinks what as the wise scholar said, ''la taktarith be'a7ad''!
Probably written to reassure the self or fulfil a duty one that perhaps comes with benefits!

 

[~Zaria~]

No, I saw it. You should also know that the people leading the charge for the belief in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and that aliens were captured by the US government in Roswell are mainly non-Muslim also. That doesn't give it any more credence in my mind.

As sister Shadin has said, this is an over-generalisation.
There are very many level-headed people, who do not hold onto such fables.....AND are able to see the world without the foggy lenses of leading media networks.

Ps. have a look at the videos by Youtuber 'StormsCloudsGathering' (non-muslim) - you may learn a lot from here, God-willing.

.....but I also knew that too many Muslims would become ostriches with their heads stuck in the stand denying reality. Muslims want to believe that they are the good guys and the others (USA, Israel, "The West") are the bad guys, so when events like this happen in which their black and white view of the world is shaken they revert to distorting facts and reality.

Again, where is your proof for this.
If these stories were driven by muslims, you would have a stronger case.

If people are being brainwashed it is not the people watching mass media who believe the official story. It is the men like these two that spent their time watching jihadi videos online and listening to so-called holy men who not only condone but encourage violence against Americans, Jews and anyone else they consider the enemy and it is the people that want to deny reality and facts in order to propagate their inaccurate world view.

Clearly, 'mass media' has already formulated your ideas of these two young men.
How would you know about their love for 'jihadi videos' and 'listening to so-called holy men'......
(Pls do not tell us about Tamerlans alleged youtube page that hosts a folder called 'Terror', and which now stand empty. This is not any form of proof. Thanks.)

 

[Independent]

If you do a quick search on the web and on youtube - e.g try: 'Boston Bombings conspiracy' - I promise you, that you will easily find ~90% of the authors/ video-makers to be non-muslim.

I know, but most non muslims think it's a conspiracy for some other cause, not part of a world anti-islam agenda.

This represents the most extraordinary alliance between people who normally should have nothing in common with each other and i still can't get over how wild this is. Right wing patriots, some liberal groups, nationalists - and now many Muslims. All in the same boat, although they don't like to admit it. Muslims are the latecomers to this but they are rapidly taking over the whole genre through sheer numbers. As for a culprit, blaming the Jews is the most common theme but by no means the only one.

For many Muslims, this political belief is actually a part of their religion, and to contradict it is (in their eyes) an attack on Islam itself.

For the west (and for world peace) this is a disaster because the west cannot undeclare a secret war which no one knows about and which it never declared in the first place. So long as you believe this, there really is nowhere to go on this one.

They are just simple citzens who are seeing the world for what it is, and are making every effort to verify mainstream news for themselves.

They can no more be described as 'simple citizens' than the majority who don't hold these views, and who also 'see the world for what it is'. A group which remains in the large majority, except in some Arab countries.

(Have you watched the videos that I had previously suggested to you, as well as the books?
If not, its never too late.....)

I did watch a number of them and I was disappointed, because I admire your piety and I expected something that might challenge me. In the event, unfortunately I found them very far from credible. Yet, I have to understand that you do admire them and find them believable.

You may think whatever you wish about me, but I cannot suddenly suspend all the critical faculties that I would normally apply to any other issue. I can't look for holes in the so-called 'mainstream view' and then ignore gaping absurdities in alternative accounts. (I have yet to see anyone, either on this forum or anywhere else, offer a credible alternative narrative for the Boston bombs - all they do is look for holes in the official account, even if it contradicts their own story.)

Back to the videos. When it got to the bit about the hidden meanings in the UK flag, and the stuff about Starbucks meaning 'star' (as in flag of Israel) and 'bucks' as in 'we give Israel money' I really could not continue. I simply don't understand why anyone would find that explanation more credible than the story the company itself gives, that they named themselves after the coffee-loving character in Moby Dick. He was called...wait for it...Starbuck. Coincidence? I don't think so!

I hate the way this conspiracy is dividing Muslims from the rest of the world and trying to understand how it came about is the main reason i joined this forum last year.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Bigfoot.

The Loch Ness Monster.

Lizard people wearing human skin and disguising themselves as major political figures.

I shudder to think what your definition of “seeing yourself as a realist” is, titus.

If you’re allowed to play amateur psychologist then so am I. How many times in your life have you done this very same thing regarding theism? Made the inevitable comparisons with the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn? Or maybe Santa Claus? Or leprechauns in your attic? Fairies at the bottom of the garden?

Here it comes. Now you’re going to argue with me for thirteen pages about how you’re not making fun of anyone and those are all very legitimate, utterly nonjudgmental points. Purely intellectual arguments. You could just as well have been stating it as a formula for all the difference it made. I suppose you’ve one again just failed to express yourself properly?

“Anyone who has spent much time engaging members of Skeptics’ organizations knows about their strong inclination toward ridicule and ad hominem criticism of those with differing viewpoints.” (scientificexploration.org)

Unfortunately anyone who has spent enough time arguing with these people will be just as familiar with how firmly in denial they are about these tendencies as well. Until you admit to yourself that you have a problem you will never be able to overcome it. But you will never do that because said problem is perennial and probably subconscious:

“The unbelievers say, ‘What, when we are dust, and our fathers, shall we indeed be brought forth? We have been promised this, and our fathers before; this is naught but the fairy-tales of the ancients.’” (Qur’an 27:67-68, Arberry)

The situation never changed in The Prophet’s own day, it has never changed since, and I don’t reckon it will change now. Indeed, the internet has only made it twenty times worse.

You want to talk black-and-white, cut-and-dried views of the world? How am I not to get the impression at this point that in your eyes every single paranormal or supernatural belief of any kind is precisely on par with belief in Bigfoot, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters and lizard people along with conspiracy theories? Why not? There’s no “evidence” for any of it so it’s all the same to you. And a little bit of arrogance is only natural in a situation like that. If that doesn’t count as cut-and-dried then what on earth could?

Of course I could very well be wrong about all of this. But that’s the hazard of playing amateur psychologist about someone you don’t even know and can do little more than make broad generalizations about, is it not?

Anyway returning to the topic I’m beginning to wonder if we’ve all been spending far too much time bickering about all of these things and not enough time sending our hearts out to the victims and giving these people our duas. Perhaps we could end the thread and start a new one just for that. There’s been far too much nastiness here—and as you can see I’m probably as guilty as anyone.

 

[Urban Turban]

Asking about the weather is wrong?

Asking about the weather?? Are you kidding me???

I was actually referring more to your comparing Independent to Pharaoh and calling him a liar and a kafir.

Really?

---------------------------------

Just for the record...does anyone remember Craig Monteilh? The FBI informant who pretended to be a Muslim and talked of Jihad...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant

 

[titus]

If these stories were driven by muslims, you would have a stronger case.

My point is that Muslims are more likely to fall for these tales, not that they necessarily propagate them. The facts back that up if you look at polls about conspiracy theories 9/11.

Ps. have a look at the videos by Youtuber 'StormsCloudsGathering' (non-muslim) - you may learn a lot from here, God-willing.

I watched one of them. It's a mixture of truth and conjecture to come to a conclusion. Put just enough facts in it, then connect the dots to make the picture they want to believe.

How would you know about their love for 'jihadi videos' and 'listening to so-called holy men'......

Maybe I should get my news and world view from Youtube videos?

I do know that he was kicked out of a Mosque after he started yelling at the Imam who was praising Martin Luther King (witnessed by Muslims who I assume you would not call part of the conspiracy). His Youtube account had videos by Feiz Mohammad who calls for violent jihad and is known for his hatred of Jews. If these are the kind of men he is listening to would planting a bomb be any surprise, really?

If you want to look at the facts then please, let's do. Let's go over exactly what had to be done for this to be successful:

1) They had to pick two patsies and then somehow make sure they were videotaped at the bomb site right before the bombs went off.
2) They had to plant eyewitnesses in the crowd to speak to the media about how they saw the men not look back when the bombs went off, unlike everyone else.
3) They had to get the two patsies to leave without their backpacks so that the before/after pics lined up.
4) They had to let the two patsies roam free for a couple of days then post their pictures for the whole world to see. This would allow the patsies to make calls to lawyers and family to declare their innocence, none of which was done. Don't you find that suspicious?
5) They arrest one of the men while a camera is filming it, then hold a fake shootout in another location so that they can claim the patsy was run over by his brother.
6) With one patsy left they make the dumbest decision of all anyone running a conspiracy of this scale... they capture the other patsy alive. Now one wrong word from him and the conspiracy is in danger. What is their motivation for this?
Are they so sure that their torture techniques will make him tell their version? How do they get his lawyers in on the conspiracy or were they a part of it to begin with?
Or is he a part of the conspiracy who is willing to spend the rest of his life in jail in order to help the conspirators?
Or are the conspirators such nice people that they don't mind killing and maiming a bunch of innocent people, but can't handle killing the younger brother?
7) They had to make public the fact that the FBI had questioned him before and not considered him a threat, and since the FBI is obviously in on it the that means part of the conspiracy involves making themselves look so incompetent that members of the US congress are calling for hearings and investigations into it.
8) Let's also make it part of the conspiracy to make the US government look even more incompetent by having the Russians (who may or may not be part of the conspiracy) point out that they asked for one of the patsies to be investigated long ago.
9) They also have to make sure that the media are all in line, which is easy because nobody in the main stream media would ever want to uncover something that would make the government look bad. There are certainly no examples of that in US history, just ask Woodward and Bernstein. One single rogue reporter could easily find out the truth on Youtube but we know they will be too afraid to investigate it because.... why exactly?


Now I know that none of this will sound absurd to you most likely. If you think this was a conspiracy all I can say is that it was one horribly planned conspiracy that will only be uncovered, as all conspiracies like this are, by people on the internet.

I also love the fact that "false flag" was being called the same day of the bombing when nothing was known. Ever since it has been a scramble to find evidence to back up the conclusion and not a scramble to look at evidence and come to a conclusion.

 

[titus]

Here it comes. Now you’re going to argue with me for thirteen pages about how you’re not making fun of anyone and those are all very legitimate, utterly nonjudgmental points. Purely intellectual arguments. You could just as well have been stating it as a formula for all the difference it made. I suppose you’ve one again just failed to express yourself properly?

Am I judgmental about people that believe in things when I think the evidence points the other way? Yes, it's true, I can't help it. And yes, I can be a bit snarky at times and occasionally go too far.

Being judgmental is human nature. Many on these forums have tried to judge me simply because I am a non-Muslim posting on a Muslim message board (or simply because I am a non-Muslim). I understand that and deal with it, even the ones that are a little too defensive because they don't know me yet.

 

[جوري]

As sister Shadin has said, this is an over-generalisation.

Not just an over generalization but every other non related hogwash strung together. There's no taking any case for its particular parts and individual circumstances and evidence- NO, if you don't believe in invincible passports then by same token you believe in lizard people and big foot.. Then it becomes a matter or 'beliefs' not facts..

 

[titus]

You seem obsessed with this passport.

Which, to you, is more unbelievable: that a passport survived a plane wreck, or that a passport did not survive a plane wreck?

If you are claiming that some ID surviving a plane crash is evidence of the US or Israel being behind a cover up of the wreck then those countries must be behind every single plane wreck I am aware of.