Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

[FourthBase]

No, no, no. I didn't mean it was a libel issue.

I just meant the tactics we're all decrying the threat of were used on him. That was a political prosecution. I'm totally opposed to that.

Doesn't mean none of the facts brought out by it aren't true, wrt connections, money, etc. Or that they aren't meaningful.

It's basically the flip side of the you-have-rights-or-you-don't argument. The guy was or wasn't doing something the state had a right to put him in jail for. As far as I can see, he wasn't. So it sets a worse precedent than the police using tactical gear does, imo.

Right, but, if he had been knowingly funding terrorism (and not just some tranquil interpretation of "jihad") but the government for whatever reason balked at prosecuting him on that charge, perhaps because of a shadowy can of worms it could open (*cough*PTech*cough*) or because he was indirectly part of some national security agenda, then that could actually be a political non-prosecution, and I would be totally opposed to not prosecuting him.

[Canadian_watcher]

thanks everyone for pointing out the timestamp thing..
this is why we come together and look for answers, tho, no? this isn't proof that someone is 'rushing to judgment' with 'preconceived notions' at all.

anyone who thinks they know what happened that day ought to read 4B's posts. Even he doesn't, and he lives there

[FourthBase]

Muntasser was tried on those charges because the government didn't have a better case to make against him

Or, perhaps, didn't want to make a better case against him?

Or he took the fall for someone better protected.

I guess I take that for granted, actually.

Yep. Good point. It's possible. Let's ask 8bit who he'd guess that could be.

[Hunter]

There are plenty of questions that IMO do not involve a rush to judgement, it is just that particular issue isnt one of them. There are plenty more though, as you know.

[justdrew]

well, I blame twitter, they should show the time with it's timezone identifier. like "12:56 PST"

but yeah.

the "story" changes because people with info say stuff they may well to believe is true, AT THE TIME. IIRC, Ten people can't describe the same event they all witnessed the day before without significant differences cropping up. "eye witness" testimony is notoriously inaccurate.

'unarmed' could me the gun was left in the boat after he crawled out for all I know. Time will tell I guess.

I'd guess that tweet was captured by someone on the west coast. Time is adjusted for the viewers local time zone setting.

Bingo. But one wonders why a clearly-intelligent person like Canadian_watcher couldn't figure that out for herself. But Canadian_watcher isn't the only person to do this in this thread, and I myself have been guilty of this on numerous occasions in the past.

The reason, it appears to me, is that beliefs aren't being driven by facts in this and some other discussions, but that "facts" are being cherry-picked to fit preconceived beliefs or tendencies to believe.

Throughout this thread, as now, I've been scratching my head over what I was perceiving as appallingly-poor critical thinking skills manifesting in the posts of several people I normally consider notably intelligent.


[Edited twice to correct grammar.]

[FourthBase]

thanks everyone for pointing out the timestamp thing..
this is why we come together and look for answers, tho, no? this isn't proof that someone is 'rushing to judgment' with 'preconceived notions' at all.

anyone who thinks they know what happened that day ought to read 4B's posts. Even he doesn't, and he lives there

Yes, read all of them, all 97 pages' worth of them.
I never claimed to know everything that was happening.
In fact, I was asking questions, questioning everything, all throughout.

But there were some things others claimed to be happening, with certainty...
And I knew that they were not happening, not in the way being claimed, the why.
There were also conclusions being reached prematurely (still) with unjustified certainty.
And I (sloppily and angrily at points) reminded all of us to...wait, think, question.

Seriously, read everything I've posted in this thread.
You'll probably be surprised, how consistent I am.

[Hunter]

DREW I had missed your post where you addressed the twitter thing before I did, so my apologies for jumping in as if I had new information.

But yea, we are the same page there for sure.

[Simulist]

thanks everyone for pointing out the timestamp thing..
this is why we come together and look for answers, tho, no?

Most people here appear honestly to be looking for answers, yes; some others have appeared to be looking for confirmation of their biases.

this isn't proof that someone is 'rushing to judgment' with 'preconceived notions' at all.

"Proof"? Probably not quite. But it does seem awfully suggestive of it.

[compared2what?]

Now we learn Dzhokhar was unarmed in the boat.

The Watertown police chief doesn't seem to know that, though:

Then why-the-fuck THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ETJJr4eH4

I don't know. What is it?

I mean, it sounds like gunfire and/or flashbangs. Not sure if/how it overlaps timewise with this video...



...but fwiw, there it is for comparison.

[justdrew]

DREW I had missed your post where you addressed the twitter thing before I did, so my apologies for jumping in as if I had new information.

But yea, we are the same page there for sure.

no problem.

and sorry for picking on you earlier, you were just being used as a stand in for all the other voices "out there" - jumping to per-ordained conclusions, which is not to imply you or anyone else in particular, were doing.

This event has consumed far too much of my time.

[compared2what?]

Right, but, if he had been knowingly funding terrorism (and not just some tranquil interpretation of "jihad") but the government for whatever reason balked at prosecuting him on that charge, perhaps because of a shadowy can of worms it could open (*cough*PTech*cough*) or because he was indirectly part of some national security agenda, then that could actually be a political non-prosecution, and I would be totally opposed to not prosecuting him.

That's an interesting proposition.

...

I think I actually might be in favor of political non-prosecution sometimes, as long as the USDAs have to exercise some discretion about what to go after anyway. But I guess the bottom line is that whatever the policies/procedures are, they should apply to everyone equally. IOW: First choice: No political witch hunts/free passes. Second choice: No politically disproportionate distribution of political witch hunts/free passes.

I hate that there's nothing duller than fairness. Justice is fun. But fairness isn't.

So unfair.

[Hunter]

Yea, it is understandable that many people here and elsewhere, including myself, became frustrated over some of this wild eyed speculation that has been happening, I do believe, with further wild eyed speculation, that the CT community has been infiltrated by 'someone" or some 'group' of people that seemingly have an interest in discrediting anyone and everyone who questions official stories about anything. I think it started to get real bad around Aurora and it hit a peak with Sandy Hook and the whole 'it didnt happen and no kids died' meme and has been crusing along on auto pilot on through this Boston Bombing and many otherwise intelligent people and researchers have fallen for it.

It is a disease that has spread far and wide and I hate it.

[Burnt Hill]

thanks everyone for pointing out the timestamp thing..
this is why we come together and look for answers, tho, no?

Most people here appear honestly to be looking for answers, yes; some others have appeared to be looking for confirmation of their biases.

this isn't proof that someone is 'rushing to judgment' with 'preconceived notions' at all.

"Proof"? Probably not quite. But it does seem awfully suggestive of it.

Though in all fairness wasnt it MacCruiskeen that posted it originally? Does that matter? And isnt easy to trust a prominent poster - and follow their lead? And wasnt it Mac that posted the blurry boat pic and started drawing conclusions? It just seems unfair that some of this is coming down on canadian_watcher.
edited to spell MacCruiskeen properly- I hope I did anyway?

[Hunter]

To add, this doesnt mean that I agree with the official story, I do not, I believe very strongly right now, barring any new information, that these kids were recruited by people who are connected and stand to benefit from these events, to pull it off. They were handled in some way or another, directly or indirectly. I will stand by that, at this time, until I find out otherwise which is very unlikely.


I will entertain the idea they acted alone, I wont put all my eggs in the false flag, manufactured basket, but right now I have a strong suspicion that is what this is and I know there is plenty of evidence that these alphabet agencies have had a hand in similar events, that is a fact.

[Canadian_watcher]

thanks everyone for pointing out the timestamp thing..
this is why we come together and look for answers, tho, no? this isn't proof that someone is 'rushing to judgment' with 'preconceived notions' at all.

anyone who thinks they know what happened that day ought to read 4B's posts. Even he doesn't, and he lives there

Yes, read all of them, all 97 pages' worth of them.
I never claimed to know everything that was happening.
In fact, I was asking questions, questioning everything, all throughout.

But there were some things others claimed to be happening, with certainty...
And I knew that they were not happening, not in the way being claimed, the why.
There were also conclusions being reached prematurely (still) with unjustified certainty.
And I (sloppily and angrily at points) reminded all of us to...wait, think, question.

Seriously, read everything I've posted in this thread.
You'll probably be surprised, how consistent I am.

4B I have no issues whatsoever with the research you're doing/have done or your opinions or any of that, I want to make that really clear. I like you, I think you're smart, I respect your take on the situation. I'm glad you are back.