Exclusive: Boston bombing suspect speaks - video - Channel 4 News

reply to post by TheMagus


A simple correction, like I posted above, is all that is required. There is no need to get all bothered by their ignorance.

Once the term "racism" gets removed from the equation, they will need another leg to stand on and subsequent discussion will probably expose just the type of thing you are pointing out (e.g. "Muslim" = "Arab").

Perpetuating the problem doesn't help.

All of this is off-topic anyways.

ATS is a funny place.

Here we can see discussions on the value of authentication of the reptillian species or the greys invading our planet.

Sun beings from another dimension interfering with our thought processes are debated rationally.

But try calling idiot muslim extremists "idiot muslim extremists" and the shrill bleating raises in pitch to such a degree that dogs and dolphins get ear aches!

Occam's Razor. Sometimes an asshat idiot muslim extremist killer-bomber is just that.

reply to post by NickDC202

I'm beginning to wonder if the Tsarnaev brothers were working for the US government in some capacity to get intel on Chechen/Russian terrorists and are now in the process of going into the witness protection program because something strikes me as being very odd about that dialogue.

I didn't find anything odd about him saying he was alright, that he had money in his account, or that he was being fed rice and chicken.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by IndieA

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Like you, many ignore the true context of "the presumption of innocence", so they can ignore the PROBABILITY of a defendant's guilt.

See ya,
Milt

The NY post ran a picture of two guy's they thought maybe suspects .The first thing the guys did is came out and said "We had nothing to do with it". So unless the brothers were already in custody and the guys that were chased though the streets of Boston were actors ,they did a very poor job of proclaiming their innocence.

reply to post by TheMagus

this is especially blatant in the boston case, where we have an excessive emphasis on the Tsarnaev's being muslim and willfully ignoring the fact that they are WHITE CAUCASIANS.

You seem to be "willfully ignoring the fact" that most Chechens ARE Muslims with a MIXED racial heritage.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by IndieA
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

What ever happened to common sense?
HE ADMITTED HE DID IT AND THE REASON WHY. JIHAD.

I think there was a cover-up regarding who all was responsible ...

:shk:

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by NickDC202
I'm beginning to wonder if the Tsarnaev brothers were working for the US government in some capacity ..

The brothers were idiot radical muslim terrorists. Pure and simple.
There are a lot of them in the world. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar .. ya' know?

Agreed 100% on this. It goes back to what we see a lot here lately. Horrible events need explaining so people can feel comfy in the knowledge it will always be 'someone else' it happens to. If an elaborate conspiracy theory can be erected around the horrible event, it's easy to say "TPTB" would never bother with such a big effort where he/she personally lives...so the world is safe again and all is well.

Unfortunately, you're right. A cigar is just a cigar at times and murderous scum really are just worthless killers at times. That blows the whole "can't happen near me" theory though, since those types can pop up anywhere. I think that's honestly more than some can/are willing to face in life.

(Hands over a pair of rosey red glasses) Here, try a pair...They make everything look like someone else's conspiracy problem and no threat to us personally in life.

reply to post by NickDC202

blah blah blah Get a clue ... HE ADMITTED HE DID IT and that it was for his extremist muslim views.


reply to post by TheMagus

More silliness ... no, saying that the bomber was exactly what he claimed to be ... a radical islamic extremist on Jihad .. is NOT racism of any sort. Open a dictionary.

reply to post by Darth_Prime

Yes we do know that for a fact. They got caught on video .. they threw bombs at the cops ... they were ID'd by bombing victims and by the fella they kidnapped and stole a car from ... AND THE SURVIVOR CONFESSED.

Click here for more information.

I'm kinda curious to those who would use the race card on such an absurd thing as this?? What Race are we supposed to be against when we hate Jihadi killers like these two? Is it....Black? White? Arab? Asian?

I certainly know of Al Qaeda operations among devout Muslim radicals from the Americas to Europe to the Middle East and clear out to the Philippines. I'd hate to get this wrong now, so which am I missing for being racist with?

After all..



All Al Qaeda and/or radical Muslims are the same race, huh?

Originally posted by beezzer
But try calling idiot muslim extremists "idiot muslim extremists" and the shrill bleating raises in pitch to such a degree that dogs and dolphins get ear aches!

Absolutely. Mod AshleyD did a great thread on that -
The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam

Originally posted by NickDC202
You're statements without citing on the record facts are preposterous

My statement ... that the perp ADMITTED THAT HE DID THE DEED .. is 100% correct.
What was preposterous was your straw man deflection attempt at using the race card.

especially considering your statements about other cases.

The Zimmerman case is very different. He claims to be innocent. The Boston perp has admitted his role and that it was for his extremist religious views. To try to connect the two cases in any way is absurd.

self edited the rest .. he isn't worth it ...

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IndieA
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

What ever happened to common sense?
HE ADMITTED HE DID IT AND THE REASON WHY. JIHAD.

I think there was a cover-up regarding who all was responsible ...

:shk:

Can you prove to me that he admitted that he did it. Or are you basing that assumption on the fact that that's what the FBI said. Because the FBI have been notorious liars and did you hear about the guy in Orlando they killed.

Interesting, although I doubt this will convince anyone whose mind is made up either way.

I don't see how this alone could ever be proof of innocence, since Islamist preachers openly say that the "kuffar" (particularly of the US and UK) can be harmed, manipulated and lied to during war.
In that sense it could be viewed as part theater for gullible Western liberals (further attacks on "innocent" Muslims), as well as a homage to the eldest son and a mother's implicit challenge for further martyrdom to Islamists.

While there certainly may be a conspiracy behind the War on Terror and Islamism which manipulates both sides through lies, half-truths and divide and rule, that does not mean Islamist brainwashing and wider sympathies are not very real and simple to achieve.

The mother clearly feels sorry for her son's incarceration initially (based on her emotion rather than proof), but the performance hardly seems like a convincing plea of innocence.
While interpretations may differ, to me she ultimately looks defiantly and triumphantly proud of her boys.

But who knows?
Maybe it's ALL theater, and the parents are actors sending two very different messages to different sympathies simultaneously?
It all seems quite open-ended in crucial parts.
For example, when she says that the eldest son prayed five times a day and otherwise they would not be "real Muslims", she doesn't elaborate further on what her implication of a "real Muslim" is.
She doesn't say that being devout means he was peaceful and moderate, as one might expect in a plea of innocence in this case.
The tone here is rather that he was a "real Muslim" in the same sense as people might say a soldier was a "real man".

What is certain is even extreme ideologies are very media savvy and know the power of propaganda.
Islamists may play different tunes for different audiences, for example, 9/11 was at times blamed on conspiracies, while at others Islamist propaganda boasted of it as a major victory.

Of course guilt and innocence won't be proven or disproved by the opinions of the parents.
The question is really whether the parents truly come across as if the sons were innocent of a horrific deed.
If they are Islamist sympathizers they might believe that the sons were "innocent" of a "crime", but that doesn't mean they believe they didn't commit the act.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I don't know Wrabbit - every time we point things like this out they seem to fall on deaf ears (excepting finely-tuned Wrabbit ears, of course. )

Remember when, like weeks after the bombing the media released the story that a note was found inside the boat saying that he did it for religious reasons. I remember thinking that was such a blatant lie. Why would it take weeks for information like that to come out, unless it was made up to create evidence that would help convince people of his guilt. Then they never released the note either, or if they did, I never saw it, would someone please show me it, if you have seen it?

The whole thing is fishy. I believe that there is more to the story than the public is being told. Lord knows it wouldn't be the first time the government has mislead the people.