Boston Bombing

Ok so I was recently informed on twitter to post why I think the Tsarnaev brothers are innocent, and/or the government was involved. I was supposed to get on last night, but didnt get the chance to. I'm still trying to get the hang of this website, so I'm not exactly sure if this is gonna work or not, but I'm writing this anyway. I would just like to start off by saying that everybody knows the Government hides stuff from its people and everybody knows they've most likely framed innocent people for crimes before. They can very well play with citizens minds and former anchor Amber Lyon exposed CNN on only reporting what the government pays them to report. But people still tend to believe what they say and not do some research on their own. On April 15th, 2013 when the bombing happened I was right away obessed with the case and I really just needed to find out who did it, but when April 19th came I wasn't convinced it was the two boys that were accused for the reasons being. Jahar Tsarnaev was said to be unarmed and was injured when hiding out in the boat and didn't make any sign that he was going to attack, but as soon as he peaked his head out of the boat a one sided gun fight began. Also officals say that Tamerlan was killed by Jahar when Jahar drove away in the car, but theres footage of a man who looks a lot like Tamerlan getting aressted naked and very well alive that very night. Friends of Jahar were saying this seems way out of something he'd do. They say he was never violent and could never hurt a fly. So after this happened I just didn't really know what to think, so I decided to research some of this on my own. I found videos and photos explaing why theres a very big chance it wasn't them behind this horrific tragedy, but the U.S government( most likely craft international in my opinion) I'll post links and photos of all of this at the end of this rant. But anyway moving on as I stayed updated on this case I started to notice how much their stories changed. They say Jahar shot himself in the throat but then later claim he was unarmed. When they killed Ibrgiam a man who had just had knee surgery and couldn't walk(which is also something that should make you all question what that man knew and why they killed him) they're story changed multiple times. First they said he lunged at them. But then oh wait he lunged at them with a sword. Oh wait no a broom. Then they supposedly got a written confession from him before they killed him that him and Tamerlan were behind the triple murders. But then later it was proved that was indeed not Ibragiam's handwriting. That's all that's coming to my head right now because it is very late, but I would just like to say to everyone that I am not a fangirl but a girl who questions America's justice system and government. I have a open mind to anything and I'd appreciate no hate and thats why I'm trying to keep my identity on this website as anynmous as possible.

 

Be good to remove all stuff like this from your claims, it's conjecture.

 

I looked briefly into this and while it seems there are some questionable dealings going on with payed positive reporting of foreign governments, there is no actual evidence it *only* reports what the government pays it to, ie, it also ran pieces not so positive. The government in question was that of Bahrain, not the US, so the relevance of that to this case is lacking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_...g_on_CNN.27s_coverage_of_the_Bahrain_protests
Certainly not a good journalistic practice and one that bears closer inspection, but to conclude that any reporting on the Boston bombing was cleared with the government first and deliberately misleading is unwarranted.

 

There's a lot to debunk here. As Mick said, start a topic with a specific claim, if there already is not one.

 

No, in courts it is allowed as testimony to the character of a witness. Please don't try and make new people follow the rules of argument and debate that you feel are appropriate. Does his argument that friends speak to his character carry much weight? Perhaps not, but testimony by people who knew the subject can and should be considered.

 

They are part of the posting guidelines - generally assertions should be backed up with some reference, and unsupported conjecture should not be central to any claim.

 

In court a connection would have to be established before the testimony would be relevant.

If citation is not necessary I can reveal that the OP is wrong. I know Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and I can tell you that he is very violent and has hurt many flies.

 

Character witnesses can only be called by a defendant and even in court can be perceived as biased.