Jump to content

Boston bombing


drat01

Recommended Posts

(Comments from teacher from about 4.10 in this video, about how he submitted photos as requested and was later visited by FBI to wipe them from his camera).

 

Previous involvement of FBI in terrorist entrapment.

 

Bomb squad were running a controlled explosion on the same day as the bombings.

 

Tamerlan attended CIA workshop.  And here.

 

Uncle Ruslan worked for USAID (CIA sponsored), was involved with Big Sky moneylaundering firm which shipped billions out of Kazakhstan, lived next door to mafia boss Aziz Batukaev, was involved with Halliburton over Kazakh oil, and was part of the group which bought Sunningdale from Prince Andrew for several millions over the market price (having acquired it for £12k though it was meant to be held for the common good; oh, and Andy dodged capital gains tax as well), as a payback for Andrew improperly interfering in a fraud investigation involving BaE, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan.  Links:

 

http://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/accused-chechen-bombers-uncle-ruslan-zaindi-tsarni-worked-for-usaid-big-sky-corporation-had-connections-to-kazakh-oligarchs/

 

https://www.sodahead.com/united-states/boston-bombers-uncle-on-feds-payroll-tied-to-cia/question-3652423/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

 

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/boston-bombers-cia-connection-and.html

 

http://2012indyinfo.com/2012/05/27/money-laundering-probe-puts-spotlight-on-the-15-million-sale-of-the-duke-of-yorks-home-telegraph/

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8172266/WikiLeaks-Duke-of-York-received-Serious-Fraud-Office-briefing-over-BAE-Systems-investigation.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8378172/Did-Prince-Andrew-avoid-a-6-million-tax-bill-when-he-sold-Sunninghill-to-his-Kazakh-friends.html

 

The Tsaernaevs don't seem to be an ordinary family by any stretch of the imagination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Saudi national Abdul Rahman Ali al-Harbi who was injured in the blast was initially thought to be a suspect - something about traces of explosives on his hands, I think.

 

He was then said not to be a suspect.

 

Then we hear he had been a regular visitor to the White House.  Then reports that Michelle Obama had visited him in hospital.

 

Now we are told he's

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Saudi national Abdul Rahman Ali al-Harbi who was injured in the blast was initially thought to be a suspect - something about traces of explosives on his hands, I think.

 

He was then said not to be a suspect.

 

Then we hear he had been a regular visitor to the White House.  Then reports that Michelle Obama had visited him in hospital.

 

Now we are told he's

 

 

That poor guy was jumped on by another member of the public becasue he looked arab and was near a bomb site.

 

I am guessing all the publicity about him alerted border control that his visa had ran out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saudis are always both bad and good as far as the west is concerned. 

 

Snakes.

 

They pander to our leaders at the same time as disseminating an intolerant shade of Islam and repressing their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Conspiracy theory alert*

 

Here's an interesting notion.

 

The US intends to enforce regime change in Iran, if and when circumstances permit.  Doing so is far from easy, and carries many risks.

 

It would be easier to influence Iran, up to and including regime change, if Syria were out of the way.  There are also political benefits for the US in securing regime change in Syria (and also risks).

 

Russia is an obstacle to regime change in Syria.  Not an insuperable obstacle, but an obstacle all the same.  It would be helpful if Russian support for the current Syrian regime could be ended or weakened, to facilitate US military intervention in Syria.  That would require political advances for Russia sufficient to make up for the loss of a strategic asset like Syria; some influence over which successor regime is supported, and some defensible reason for withdrawing support from Syria, other than "it was expedient".

 

A credible reason for Russia withdrawing support would be if Syria had deployed chemical weapons, because that would breach the understanding between the two countries.  At the moment, we have some very woolly reports which seem to try to say that chemical weapons have been used by the Syrian government, without actually evidencing that.  There's an interesting piece here about some of the problems involved in finding out if sarin has been used.  At the moment, it really feels like the Dodgy Dossier all over again.

 

What could be the gain for Russia in letting go of Syria?  Possibly it thinks Syria can't be saved, so the aim is to get the best price, not prevent it falling.  Perhaps a worthwhile exchange could be free hand in dealing with internal opposition without tiresome objections from the US and others.  Internal opposition in places like, oh I don't know, maybe...Chechnya?  Perhaps making the case that internal opposition should be viewed as terrorism, and treated accordingly?  Several countries made this pitch in the wake of 9/11.  Here's Putin linking Boston with his own desire to quell Chechyn opposition.

 

These possible linkages are discussed in more detail by Sibel Edmonds.  A piece today on that site discusses Putin detaining 140 people today, an operation which must have been in the making for some time.

 

I don't know if the author sees the Boston event as having been staged as one step in a far wider picture, or if she thinks it's just being used opportunistically, but she makes a good case that there is some linkage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite uncertain about it.

 

It is clear that the family were involved with the CIA, both the uncle and Tamerlan.  Uncle Ruslan in particular seems a very interesting character.  I haven't seen any suggestions that Dzokhar was involved with the CIA.

 

I can see three broad possibilities for the bombing.

 

  • that the CIA or FBI did it
  • that they had the brothers do it
  • that the brothers did it with no CIA/FBI involvement

 

The first is plausible.  It would fit with the photos of Dzokhar with his backpack after both explosions, his normal movements after the event, the apparent lack of any planning by the brothers about what to do next or in the event of being identified, and the suggestions that at least some of the injuries were staged.  I suppose in this case the aim would be to pin the blame on the Chechyns for political gain (eg via the Russia-Syria scenario I mentioned earlier), and kill the brothers.  The staging of a controlled explosion as an "exercise" on the same day in the same place, and the FBI's destruction of evidence in the form of photos taken by passers-by, would fit with this and the second.

 

The second is plausible.  If Tamerlan was a CIA operative, then he seems from the accounts so far to be an arms-length, junior one.  I suppose someone like that would be entirely expendable.  It leaves a question about why Dzokhar could behave so normally afterwards, if he was both knowingly involved and also inexperienced and unskilled at this sort of thing, which I assume he was in the absence of any information otherwise.

 

The third is implausible.  There's no evidence of public or private religious or political zealotry that could offer a motive.  There was no plan at all about how to get away, to the extent of them actually returning to Boston when the manhunt was on.  There's the immediate statements from the mother and aunt about them having been in contact with the FBI and having been set up (going well beyond the "my son couldn't have done it, he's a nice kid" stuff that was also said by the mother).  There's no trail of contact with extremist groups (the trip to Dagestan was to attend a CIA front organisation course, not an Al-Quaeda training camp), and the internet trail seems to consist of things about how to pray, and Alex Jones - pretty innocuous.

 

As for why, well there are two sets of things.  One is that the FBI/CIA, like our own security forces, regularly encourage, induce or possibly stage security events, to keep the threat level high, to demonstrate their own value, to entrap potential sympathisers with extreme causes and so on.  Possibly one of these schemes went slightly wrong.  Perhaps it didn't, and this is what was intended.  The second is about the Syria connection.  If we start to see changes in what happens in Chechnya, the tone of the US response to any "security measures" Russia takes there, closely followed by any change in the Russian attitude to greater US/foreign involvement in regime change in Syria over and above the pretty active arming and training of rebels which is happening now, then I assume that the Boston event will have been one small part of that, on the level of influencing public perceptions.

 

But as I say, I feel quite uncertain about it, and though some things seem much more likely than others, I don't see a complete narrative that makes complete sense and can be backed with facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about any of this stuff but my heart goes out to the people who lost family and loved ones and the people that have been severley injured. The girl that has lost her foot and wants to run the marathon next year and dance. That's spirit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â