Kite High
Well-Known Member
Good you weren't injured. Hope they get the flights right for you.
Is it Possible That the U.S. Government Staged the Boston Marathon Bombing?
- Thread starter MidwesternGro
- Start date
MidwesternGro
Well-Known Member
A lead government investigator today stated that the range of suspects and motives remains wide open.
It is interesting that with all of our resources we can't narrow this down a bit.
EDIT:
Here is a link from a liberal news source, moonbats.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17767721-investigator-pleads-for-help-in-marathon-bombing-probe-someone-knows-who-did-this?lite
It is interesting that with all of our resources we can't narrow this down a bit.
EDIT:
Here is a link from a liberal news source, moonbats.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17767721-investigator-pleads-for-help-in-marathon-bombing-probe-someone-knows-who-did-this?lite
[video=youtube;tRfhUezbKLw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw[/video]
echelon1k1
New Member
So i've gotta ask the question of US citizens;
In this post 9/11 world with DHS and 24/7 sureveillance do you think you think what happended is acceptable?
I mean none of those people or agencies who have clearly FAILED to protect citizens in boston will be repremanded or face investigation... Most probably they will be promoted to DC postings and given pay bumps.
So basically with all the money, tech and personell expended by the national security infrastructure do you feel safer?
In this post 9/11 world with DHS and 24/7 sureveillance do you think you think what happended is acceptable?
I mean none of those people or agencies who have clearly FAILED to protect citizens in boston will be repremanded or face investigation... Most probably they will be promoted to DC postings and given pay bumps.
So basically with all the money, tech and personell expended by the national security infrastructure do you feel safer?
Kite High
Well-Known Member
no...quite to the contrary... I feel threatened
I think the answer depends on who perpetrated the attack. If we learn that this was an al Qaeda-directed plot utilizing operatives in the United States, that looks like a damning failure of all the infrastructure that's been built up. Of course, who knows what the government has prevented since 9/11, since I don't trust them to make truthful public announcements. Maybe that should have some weight?
Alternatively, if this is just an American crackpot who finally came unscrewed, I'm not sure much can ever be done to prevent that. The current media reporting indicates that the devices weren't very sophisticated and used low grade explosives, meaning they'd be easy to build. How could you possibly detect someone buying ordinary things to build that kind of bomb? Search internet histories for who looked up making bombs? You'll find a lot of totally innocent, harmless people doing it, and the sophisticated ones may be good enough to hide what they're doing anyway.
Detecting devices after placement probably couldn't be done any better. What if the perpetrator chose this event because he knew it would be crowded, unsecured, and totally legitimate to set big bags down? That can't be defended against.
Kite High
Well-Known Member
Serves govt agenda to Militarize Police forces even more so
Random warrantless Searches
Explosive / Drug Detecting Dogs roaming sniffing everything everyone
So there is merit to the Govt. possibility given just these few motives
echelon1k1
New Member
Explosive detection Dogs rarely, if ever, miss the mark.
The irony now is with the complete surveillance blanket covering the US - The FBI SAC in Boston is appealing to the public for answers.
It would serve as a great oppurtunity though for more federal encroachment on Local Law enforement and a real widening of the net in regards to PATCON
Explosive and drug detecting dogs can already run rampant under current law, so that's not much of a motive. A dog sniff in a public place isn't a "search" under the Fourth Amendment--it can be conducted without any suspicion whatsoever.
As for "random warrantless searches," I'm certain there will be no movement for that. They'd be challenged and struck down immediately.
MidwesternGro
Well-Known Member
People will be more accepting of it happening everywhere after the government stages an attack because they are afraid.
Since there are literally thousands of videos and images readily available from the public, it would be bad investigative work not to ask for them, even if they already had the perpetrator planting the bomb on another video. I doubt there's a massive public camera surveillance system in Boston, and even if there were, I'm not sure this perpetrator would have looked suspicious or even been visible in a crowd.
This discussion and these judgments are really too early.
echelon1k1
New Member
You need to revise your expectations champ - that or open your eyes
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
in case some people thinks its crazy to think outside of the box
in case some people thinks its crazy to think outside of the box
echelon1k1
New Member
That went straight over your head. Try again Ben.
People are accepting of it now. Most people don't question anything the police do; they assume the police are operating permissibly and might not even be aware of what their constitutional rights are.
Regardless, if this is the tack you're going to take, how long is the government going to take before the dog sniff power grab begins? 6 months? A year? Five years? Whenever it doesn't happen, I expect you to slap yourself. Police dogs are not on the verge of roaming America's cities to a much greater extent than they already do. If you're suggesting that you would be bothered by police using explosive detecting dogs at major public events, I wouldn't call that a power grab at all, since they're already used for that purpose. After a totally random bomb attack, it would be irresponsible not to step up use of the dogs. Is that likely to inconvenience me or threaten my civil liberties? Realistically, not at all.
Police departments are not malignantly plotting against the constitution. If they ask for money for dogs, it probably doesn't mean they're operating on secret government directive designed to shred the constitution; no, it probably means they saw an opportunity to prevent a future attack of this type--to avoid that level of deaths and injuries but certainly to avoid something far, far worse too--relatively easily, from their perspective and ours. It wouldn't bother me at all to see an explosive detecting dog at an airport or in a subway station or walking the streets of a public event because its purpose would be totally irrelevant to me. Patrolling vulnerable public places for threats is entirely reasonable.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
shut the fuck up, you carnival barking piece of shit out of alex jones' ass.
We heard this same exact talk after 9/11. It's fanciful nonsense. How long do we have to wait for it to not happen before you acknowledge that it was fanciful nonsense? Random warrantless searches of people in public places have been consistently invalidated absent some specific threat.
You want to know what you should actually find disturbing? Getting a search warrant is already incredibly easy. The people who issue them aren't necessarily judges, lawyers, or constitutional scholars (although some are), and regardless, they all make tons of mistakes (issuing a warrant when the had insufficient legal basis). Sometimes it's clear the issuer didn't even read the applications, let alone carefully scrutinize them. Well, what if you need one immediately and it's 5:00 AM? In some places there's someone on call for that; if not, the police can wake someone up at home and get the warrant. For a potential terrorist suspected in a bomb plot? I bet that's an even easier warrant to get.
If you aren't going to reply to the substance of what I said there's really no point in replying, since you didn't say anything.
echelon1k1
New Member
you're right, what you're saying is way past what we already know. Nothing new there...
That's some little pissant issue that keeps people from the real issues.
But I just don't feel like conversing with someone who thinks the US federal reserve is a federal government institution. It shines light on a flawed thinking process that's bathed in BOHICA
Kite High
Well-Known Member
Please obtain or use a brain prior to a weak engagement attempt