Halibut Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Right , I'm the one being attacked as I'm asking questions and showing pictures which have been not made public by the mainstream press . Serious Questions about the Boston Bombing: 1. Why do the suspects NOT have black back packs ? The older brother has a grey bag and the younger one has a white one - The ones which exploded were black ( the exact same being used by the undercover CST team ) 2. Footage after the bombing shows the two brothers who STILL have Thier back packs - What the hell is going on ? The link you directed people to is a Facebook page. Get real, for goodness sake. I think you need to learn to discriminate between what constitutes reliable evidence and what is quite clearly utter cack. ---------- Post added 23-04-2013 at 19:40 ---------- What the hell is going on ? You are publicly exposing how extraordinarily gullible you are. That's what's going. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBCY Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 The link you directed people to is a Facebook page. Get real, for goodness sake. I think you need to learn to discriminate between what constitutes reliable evidence and what is quite clearly utter cack. ---------- Post added 23-04-2013 at 19:40 ---------- You are publicly exposing how extraordinarily gullible you are. That's what's going. Again. Right , I'm the one who is gullible ? It's up too you what you wish too think , The links I provided are photos from the Bombing which you can't Find on NBC , CNN , bbc , sky etc etc etc . The FBI said help us identify these guys (. But it has been confirmed 100% thé FBI knew these two very well ) They said don't look at any other photos of the event ( why ? So we don't start asking questions ?) Look at the FBI video of the suspects , there back packs DO NOT MATCH the ones which exploded . Look at the pictures of the brothers after the Bombing , they still have Thier back packs on . Gullible and stupid is when you give up your freedoms and liberty for security ( I bet we can agree on that , can't we ?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 The link you directed people to is a Facebook page. Get real, for goodness sake. I think you need to learn to discriminate between what constitutes reliable evidence and what is quite clearly utter cack. ---------- Post added 23-04-2013 at 19:40 ---------- You are publicly exposing how extraordinarily gullible you are. That's what's going. Again. Gullible, utter cack it most likely is..but to make such a statement you would surely have to provide at least the smallest of evidence to question such cack..rather than say it's just cack. Cack has no value within the context of what's being put to you. The facebook link is a photo..what is "quite clearly utter cack" about it other than a photoshop concoction maybe? is that what you're suggesting and why you think it's cack.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Gullible, utter cack it most likely is..but to make such a statement you would surely have to provide at least the smallest of evidence to question such cack..rather than say it's just cack. Cack has no value within the context of what's being put to you. The facebook link is a photo..what is "quite clearly utter cack" about it other than a photoshop concoction maybe? is that what you're suggesting and why you think it's cack.? It's cack for a number of reasons - I'll list them. a) No way of knowing that the images haven't been altered b) Even if they are genuine, there is no way they can 'prove' anything. c) Why do they not have black backpacks? Well, maybe they swapped them. Maybe they didn't. Maybe this photo is fake or has been misinterpreted. d)SBCY and others of his ilk are frankly utterly off their trollies assigning the kind of significance they do to such flimsy 'evidence'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Pretending to be an expert? Seriously? I did read some of his work. I then quoted it to you as it contradicted what you had claimed. You then failed debate the point and chose to attack his character instead. Even though you were attempting to undermine Silke's credibility by making spurious, unsubstantiated claims you succeeded only in undermining your own by relying on an ad hominem attack rather than a solid argument. He and many other academic "experts" on terrorism look at a small number of cases in war zones where individuals have a causus beli linked to incidents involving individuals among their family/friends/clan. These of course do occur. They are however not remotely the typical instance. When you look at the carnage inflicted on Muslims by al qaeda affiliated terrorists across the islamic world if events perceived to target muslims were the primary driver to radicalisation then al qaeda would never recruit anyone. The academic discourse revolves around two agendas, neither of which is useful to dealing with the problem. First is endless debate about moral equivalence, what is terrorism, state terror vs group terror etc which is all very interesting on campus but of no use whatsoever in identifying individuals vulnerable to radicalisation in the real world. Second is an unyeilding desire to interpret motivation though a rational western prism. Israel occupies territory - that must be the cause. Afghanistan - that must be the cause. Iraq - that must be the cause. So always foreign policy and events linked to it must be the cause and it's simply a question of finding enough people linked to terrorists to say "yup, that's why I hate infidels" then publish another piece of work blaming western foreign policy. Which ignores the fact that islamists will hat check western foreign policy but it's not why they were radicalised. The supremacist ideology comes first, the justification to outsiders is window dressing, just as the NF will cite cases like Kriss Mcdonald (sp?) as justification for their hatred of non-whites, but actually if 5 years went by when no white person was harmed by non-whites they would still hate non-whites and look for another reason to justify it. What was the "reason" behind 9/11? Massacres of muslims by the west? No. We'd been defending muslims for decades, from arming his lot against the Russians to the Balkans and then had liberated Kuwait from a secular invader. The "crime" 9/11 was there to "avenge" was a small number of US troops left behind in barracks in KSA as a forward deployed rapid response unit just in case Saddam wanted another go. Not patrolling the streets in humvees and sticking guns in peoples faces, just sat in barracks kicking their heels in case Kuwait needed them to step up and help muslims. For that "crime", after decades of assisting muslims, the USA got the worst terrorist attack in it's history. For daring to allow it's people to exist on the arabian penisular. Why is that relevant, because if we focus on the acedemic debate which endlessly veers to event based rationale we ignore the reality, it's a supremacist ideology, hatred of those outside it is at it's heart and the key to recruiting new members is that they become the elite, if not in this life then the next. "Did you see that airstrike on the telly? Fancy going and blowing your guts out in McDonalds next weekend then?" is not how they recruit. If you want to see a scratch on the surface then I do recommend register a ummah.com account with a throwaway email addy and just observe(you'll last about 30 minutes if you start posting). If he's still there and I'm sure he is one of the senior mods who does a great job of radicalising the kids is Abu Mubarak, unless he's had a major change of heart, which I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 The FBI said help us identify these guys (. But it has been confirmed 100% thé FBI knew these two very well ) They said don't look at any other photos of the event ( why ? So we don't start asking questions ?) Look at the FBI video of the suspects , there back packs DO NOT MATCH the ones which exploded . Look at the pictures of the brothers after the Bombing , they still have Thier back packs on . Even the infowars sources you linked to only say the FBI knew about the elder brother (have you read your link?). How do you know what the backpacks that exploded looked like? The facebook photo is pretty indistinct but the guy arrowed in red looks nowt like the elder brother unless he's lost his shades, grown facial hair and changed his coat in a couple of minutes. You can't tell if the guy in the white square is carrying a backpack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 It's cack for a number of reasons - I'll list them. a) No way of knowing that the images haven't been altered Which would look pretty silly if someone had the negatives to prove otherwise. b) Even if they are genuine, there is no way they can 'prove' anything. Then why did the FBI make a public appeal for photographic evidence? c) Why do they not have black backpacks? Well, maybe they swapped them. Maybe they didn't. Maybe this photo is fake or has been misinterpreted. I see "maybe" as credible as "cack"..to be honest. d)SBCY and others of his ilk are frankly utterly off their trollies assigning the kind of significance they do to such flimsy 'evidence'. That may or may not be the case..but what solid evidence do you personally hold by that dismisses SBCY's cack? other than what he's produced in the form of photos...in other words what is it that isn't cack? The shootout? that could be cack, the evidence in their homes? that could be cack. To dismiss cack arm yourself with the means to do it, other than simply using the word...otherwise conspiracy theories start to take hold. ---------- Post added 23-04-2013 at 21:10 ---------- Even the infowars sources you linked to only say the FBI knew about the elder brother (have you read your link?). How do you know what the backpacks that exploded looked like? The facebook photo is pretty indistinct but the guy arrowed in red looks nowt like the elder brother unless he's lost his shades, grown facial hair and changed his coat in a couple of minutes. You can't tell if the guy in the white square is carrying a backpack. Wehey...someone at least took the time to look. btw, i concur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 He and many other academic "experts" on terrorism look at a small number of cases in war zones where individuals have a causus beli linked to incidents involving individuals among their family/friends/clan. These of course do occur. They are however not remotely the typical instance. When you look at the carnage inflicted on Muslims by al qaeda affiliated terrorists across the islamic world if events perceived to target muslims were the primary driver to radicalisation then al qaeda would never recruit anyone. The academic discourse revolves around two agendas, neither of which is useful to dealing with the problem. First is endless debate about moral equivalence, what is terrorism, state terror vs group terror etc which is all very interesting on campus but of no use whatsoever in identifying individuals vulnerable to radicalisation in the real world. Second is an unyeilding desire to interpret motivation though a rational western prism. Israel occupies territory - that must be the cause. Afghanistan - that must be the cause. Iraq - that must be the cause. So always foreign policy and events linked to it must be the cause and it's simply a question of finding enough people linked to terrorists to say "yup, that's why I hate infidels" then publish another piece of work blaming western foreign policy. Which ignores the fact that islamists will hat check western foreign policy but it's not why they were radicalised. The supremacist ideology comes first, the justification to outsiders is window dressing, just as the NF will cite cases like Kriss Mcdonald (sp?) as justification for their hatred of non-whites, but actually if 5 years went by when no white person was harmed by non-whites they would still hate non-whites and look for another reason to justify it. What was the "reason" behind 9/11? Massacres of muslims by the west? No. We'd been defending muslims for decades, from arming his lot against the Russians to the Balkans and then had liberated Kuwait from a secular invader. The "crime" 9/11 was there to "avenge" was a small number of US troops left behind in barracks in KSA as a forward deployed rapid response unit just in case Saddam wanted another go. Not patrolling the streets in humvees and sticking guns in peoples faces, just sat in barracks kicking their heels in case Kuwait needed them to step up and help muslims. For that "crime", after decades of assisting muslims, the USA got the worst terrorist attack in it's history. For daring to allow it's people to exist on the arabian penisular. Why is that relevant, because if we focus on the acedemic debate which endlessly veers to event based rationale we ignore the reality, it's a supremacist ideology, hatred of those outside it is at it's heart and the key to recruiting new members is that they become the elite, if not in this life then the next. "Did you see that airstrike on the telly? Fancy going and blowing your guts out in McDonalds next weekend then?" is not how they recruit. If you want to see a scratch on the surface then I do recommend register a ummah.com account with a throwaway email addy and just observe(you'll last about 30 minutes if you start posting). If he's still there and I'm sure he is one of the senior mods who does a great job of radicalising the kids is Abu Mubarak, unless he's had a major change of heart, which I doubt. Subtle little shift of the goalposts there Andy. It was being discussed as one of a number of factors, as you well know. I don't share your anti-intellectualism so there is probably little point in continuing. Shame, as I had found it very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Subtle little shift of the goalposts there Andy. It was being discussed as one of a number of factors, as you well know. Mike, there was no shifting of goalposts, if you want to understand radicalisation you can see it first hand via the site I suggested. If you can't be bothered then who can blame you, but understand that you don't understand. EDIT as for anti intellectualism when have I ever suggested that? My old man is an academic, I have no issues with academics. Just activist academics like the man concerned and going back to Hobsbawm and EP Thompson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Mike, there was no shifting of goalposts, if you want to understand radicalisation you can see it first hand via the site I suggested. If you can't be bothered then who can blame you, but understand that you don't understand. Where you are again missing the point is that I rule out no information as part of the picture and have every intention of pursuing your recommendation. Unfortunately your anti-intellectualism causes you to rule out a vast swathe of expertise and erudition and that is nothing less than closed-minded. If I responded to your suggestion about the website in the same manner you adopted when confronted by an academic resource I would now be saying something like - you can't trust anything on that site they're just in it for a laugh, trying to get the anti-Islam frothers all worked up. They know who their audience is and they know which buttons to push. Your lack of respect for academic disciplines and the enlightenment they can and do bring to real world events represents a tendency to blindly generalise that had blighted your ability to objectively debate before. There is a place for both empirical and theoretical knowledge in the process of learning and understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.