Boston Looking More Like Another False Flag

reply to post by eisegesis


In regard to immigration reform being tabled -

As long as they do nothing with immigration reform - the borders are still open to let any "terrorists, or drug cartel criminals" in - the student visa program is still an open invitation to stay in the US as long as they can without getting caught.

Both parties are involved in the treasonous activities. They just try to make it look like they're different.

Bush never did anything to secure the borders, either.

Not sure if it's been posted yet or deserves it's own thread, but I just got my Sports Illustrated in the mail and it's got a full picture report of the bombings. Seems a bit odd that they printed this article with full reports of what transpired and had it shipped to my door in two days.

Some of the pics are pretty graphic. Surprised they would show them in this mag.

Sorry for doing a hit and run, but wanted to say what has been on my mind today about this being a FF event.

I tend to think that it is not because of the way that the Federal authorities are handling it. The msm is also seemingly at a loss as far as the real reasons behind this event.

Although it will be used for whatever ends they chose to use it for, I think this is based more on fear, frustration and anger than an organized event.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


I seriously don't think they were targeting legs, it just so happened that the placement of the bombs caused that type of damage and there could be any number of reasons the bombs were placed where they were, but most likely it was in an easily accessible place, probably done after the security sweep to minimise detection. I don't think whoever did this would be aiming for particular body parts any damage would do!.

And sorry, but I disagree, someone, lone or otherwise who carries out an atrocity such as this for whatever reason is a terrorist inasmuch that they use terror tactics to make a point or in an effort to garner sympathy for their cause. And history in the UK has proven to me that these terror tactics can be used to garner sympathy as the US via NORAID raised plenty of cash for the terrorist group the Irish Republican Army and these types of devices were commonplace. Whilst they were all bad, the worst one I can remember was in Warrington town centre, where two young children were killed by a bomb in a litter bin, which detonated after a warning call, sent the shoppers away from safety directly into its path...a new low even for the IRA!

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by openyourmind1262

 

I seriously don't think they were targeting legs, it just so happened that the placement of the bombs caused that type of damage and there could be any number of reasons the bombs were placed where they were, but most likely it was in an easily accessible place, probably done after the security sweep to minimise detection. I don't think whoever did this would be aiming for particular body parts any damage would do!.

I don't remember he exact source I read it from, but I believe the bomb sweep had occurred about 30 minutes prior to the explosions. That is why they were actively requesting any footage, as they believe the person(s) with the bombs showed up within the 30 minute window.

reply to post by destination now


The Omagh bombing was pretty atrocious 29 killed and over 200 injured:

en.wikipedia.org...

And is a good example of how these things can occur, even when the authorities have been alerted to the attack before hand.

(Should be stated that this wasn't the IRA though)

reply to post by MaxSteiner


I agree the carnage was awful,and yes, even with warning the outcome can still be tragic though I have to disagree with the statement that it wasn't the IRA. Whether it was.Real or Provisional Republican Army, they were both groups who used some appalling tactics to make their point but the ensuing outrage over that event on all sides did move things forward towards the peace process, but a sickening and pointless loss of life nonetheless

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


This is very likely, which is why I doubt the bombs were meant to cause specific damage, it was probably a case of put them wherever they would not be detected and cause as much damage as they could and in my mind the type of person who does that type of thing is a terrorist, whatever their cause.

Originally posted by Gazrok
All the same, I think I'm going to go get that pressure cooker I've been putting off (for home canning) before those are banned too....

*ducks and runs out of the room*

Maybe!

But maybe they ban marathons first!

Quick, everyone run now while you can.

reply to post by destination now


Well my intention wasn't to shift blame, rather make the distinction, just because they're both groups with the same objective who use the same tactic doesn't make them the same group. Infact thats my problem with most coverage of terrorism when they state "it was Al Qaeda" without batting an eye lid - gleefully ignoring that's not how international terrorism works - especially when its a group called "the Network", it's just easier for the media and the powers that be to refer to it as such.

Originally posted by Kaone
You know these false flags have been happening through out history and in our time and people still find it hard to believe? They say we are too scared off the truth that we make up a scapegoat??? That is what your and most governments do tho, well I cant say government because they no longer run the country.

I was just reading a post about a bombing 10 years ago in Afghanistan where the US Military bombed a wedding killing 30 and peoples reaction was very strange. Saying things like "Oh it was 10 years ago and its a military warzone"?? Why don't you tell that to the Jewish people about world war 2?

I will address the last paragraph first: IF it is true that a wedding was bombed (and yes, I do remember the incident as reported) then it was indeed tragic. Being former military I can tell you for a fact that our "opponents" are fully aware of what the sentiment in America is regarding collateral damage, particularly involving innocents. They will report that a legit operation on legit targets were something other than legit targets for the PR value...and the media will eat it up. I suppose you choose which stories in the media to believe? You do not believe the ones that deny false flag operations but will swallow whole the wedding story (I do not know one way or the other, but I am aware that the truth is often a casualty of war on both sides)

There is a difference between the Jews of WWII...in most cases the Jews that were killed were Germany's own people, not collateral damage. The wedding participants were not taken to camps and used as slave labor and starved at the same time. They were not tortured and then murdered either.

Whole other ballgame there...apples and oranges kind of thing.

With regards to the false flag operations throughout history, many of those were committed by countries and leaders that did not have to answer to the public, such as they would here in the US if the truth came out (and no, I am not talking a bunch of wild paranoid accusations tossed about on the internet without a shred of evidence).

Originally posted by KawRider9
Not sure if it's been posted yet or deserves it's own thread, but I just got my Sports Illustrated in the mail and it's got a full picture report of the bombings. Seems a bit odd that they printed this article with full reports of what transpired and had it shipped to my door in two days.

Some of the pics are pretty graphic. Surprised they would show them in this mag.

This is the 21st century, and you are surprised by that? I tend to be surprised when information flows at the speed of a snail, not the other way around.

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
reply to post by destination now

 

Just looks as if legs were targeted. It's not hard to see this. Our Government want let a good tragedy go to waste.It'll be terrorism whether it is or is not. Just seems it was targeted at the runners VS the crowd watching, if that was the bomb at the curb in the news pics, it was targeting the runners not the crowd.

An explosive device placed on the ground will result in injuries predominantly being lower body by nature.

The explosive force with is directed downward will be deflected by, in this case, concrete resulting in at least half (in actuality much more than half) of the force being directed outward at a low level.

Science, not wild BS....There doesnt have to be an intent to blow off legs, just an intent to drop the bomb and leave safely.

Originally posted by opethPA

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
reply to post by destination now

 

That's if you beleive it was terrorist's. I personally do not. Lone wolf with some serious issues and wanting some revenge. Not everything that happens is terrorism.

Please explain to me how a lone wolf can't be terrorism?

Eric Rudolph was a terrorist, The UniBomber was a terrorist , Tim McVeigh was a terrorist . Not trying trying to argue if McVeigh was a false flag, patsy , in conjunction with others , whatever but using those terrorists who were allegedly lone wolf operators to make a point.

My point is you are incorrect in thinking that terrorism has to be an outside or multi-person group.

edit on 17-4-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

opethPA: Absolutely correct.

Terrorism is simply and typically an attack on civilians with 2 purposes: 1) kill and injure 2) create fear (terror) in the populace. In the case of 9/11 damaging our economy was a tertiary purpose.

To claim that an individual cannot be a terrorist is ridiculous.

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
reply to post by opethPA

 

So your saying. anything anybody does to harm another is terrorism. So why no one taking responsability? Normally a terrorist wants it known why they did what they did, as so their terror is spread around for all to feel. All bad shat that happens in the world aint terrorism, it will be if we let the authorities tell us it is. IMHO we use the term way to loosely.

The only thing that makes it a terrorism related event is the MSM. I would bet alll I have that if it was a steam pipe explosion, the first thing MSM would say was it's an act of terror. I stand by the Lone Wolf I'm pissed off at folks scenario. One person,one agenda. Not terrorism in the sense we have been taught to understand terrorism. IE the bad ole Muslims gonna get us all. One person extremely pissed off at what the hell ever did this act. A coward pure & simple. A foreign funded act of terrorism, NO. A domestic terrorist. NO. A single person with some serious issues with what ever.YES.

edit on 17-4-2013 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2013 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)

Pretty simple really: If the motive was to kill, injure and terrorize civilians, then it was terrorism.

If the intent was to kill a specific individual in the crowd...the effect may be terrorism but the intent or motive was murder. And so on...

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Originally posted by Vandettas


How many times is this woman going to die? She died in the Sandy Hook shooting and the Boston Bombing.

I didn't buy into the paid actors conspiracy but its starting to make since.

edit on 17-4-2013 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)

The second photo is either a mistake by the network or photoshopped, because none of the dead victims of the boston marathon looks like this woman. There is a female asian student, an 8 year old boy and Krystle Campbell who looks nothing like this picture.

Believe me, you cannot fake an event like this in the middle of a big city. Maybe you can in a middle of a rural town? I know at least half a dozen people who were either there, work in the local hospitals or know victims. And even some people who were within viewing range.

Now, you have the same internet that I have and all of this is not only public information but it is replaying non stop on the TV. Have you actually been watching?

-rrr

To suggest the bombing was faked is just stupid beyond belief,...I have a friend who had relatives at the bombing...perhaps they got paid off to claim it really happened? Really? ROFL

reply to post by bbracken677


By that definition every single spree killer is a terrorist, there needs to be a cause beside casualties for it to count as terrorism surely?

Originally posted by MaxSteiner

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I've never seen more pure unadulterated stupidity than I have in the "online conspiracy theory universe" when it comes to adamantly proposing that dozens if not hundreds of people were involved in horrific staged events from 9/11 through Sandy Hook, to this.

By that line of thought, by definition no conspiracies could exist could they?
No disrespect intended, just interested in whether you subscribe to any conspiracy theories whatsoever (in which case why these and not something like this?) and if not, how you came to be running the largest conspiracy site on the web?
(I could well understand how years of running this site would wear grind you down though

)

Personally I think the point is claiming conspiracy and false flag for every event that happens is...disingenuous at the very least and stupid at the very worst. Perhaps not stupid but certainly paranoid.

The funny thing is is that the reasons given for this being "confirmed" in some minds as a false flag are mainly shadows and total disinformation, or total misunderstanding of what actually happened.

Bomb sniffing dogs at the event are not a reason to cry false flag any more than a policeman at a football game is a reason to cry "police state".

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by bbracken677

 

By that definition every single spree killer is a terrorist, there needs to be a cause beside casualties for it to count as terrorism surely?

I dare say that every spree killer's motive is not to terrorize the populace. I dare say that very few are even thinking along those lines at all....Consider the circumstances and the triggers that result in a spree killer. Not a terrorists motive.

A terrorist is simply one or a group of individuals who, instead of attacking a military force, attack civilians with the express motive of creating wide spread terror amongst the populace. Name one spree killer whose motive was that.....

A terrorist wants to demoralize civilians, kill and injure civilians, create terror and confusion amongst civilians. They know they cannot be as effective with the same tools killing military personnel, so a civilian target is much easier, simpler and effective.

reply to post by bbracken677


Yeah, all true, except this is a conspiracy website, full of threads making equally absurd claims.
If this level of rigorous proof were expected in all threads it would be an empty forum
I seriously don't think people shouting False Flag every time anything happens is a bad thing for the site, I certainly didn't come here to see a thread of people parroting what the MSM is spouting at any rate.
Is some of whats been said a little thoughtless or insane? Yes, but it's hardly contrary to what anyone would expect upon visiting a conspiracy website.

As an aside (not a dig, just noticed that you've almost filled a page by yourself) - but don't you think it might be better to compose a single large message, or a couple of big ones rather than a huge volume of separate posts? You'd get more stars that way at any rate.

Edit ===> As for your definition of Terrorism, I, and many dictionaries are still of the opinion that a political aspect is still a requirement for terrorism, but each to his own.
I agree with you that sometimes it is a form of insurrection but it's not purely about killing civilians, many of the IRA's attacks for instance were phoned in before hand to avoid casualtes.