Boston: Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev conspiracy theories
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
If Internet sleuths were put in charge of the investigation...
The way the CTers treated many innocent people, by accusing them online, is way more police state to me than the supposed "lock down" was.If Internet sleuths were put in charge of the investigation...
J
Joe
Guest
here is a new twist ? Boston Bombing Coverup Dzhokhar's Throat Slit.<strong>
ColtCabana
Senior Member
J
Joe
Guest
why not the MEDIA did the same thing ?
True, though I think the mainstream media just fed off social media. My point was more towards the mentality of the public to jump and accuse people. In real police states people are suspicious of everyone, people turn in their own mothers for saying something deemed wrong, for fear they might say it to someone else and then have the whole family thrown in prison or worse. I wonder how many rights these CTers would allow their 'suspects'? They would probably all just be labeled liars if their story didn't fit their preconceived conclusion.why not the MEDIA did the same thing ?
J
Joe
Guest
the problem is you are grouping all CTers together as if they all believe the same conspiracy ? Then blaming them all for the actions of a few ? If CTers were a race that would be considered racism or stereotyping ? If one believes that Kennedy had more then one killer he'd be labeled a conspiracy nut even if that was his one and only Conspiracy ? I blame the media first because those are the first to screw up a story leading people to belive there is a cover up in he first place setting the stage for the conspiracy . Conspiracies are great for Disinformation which is also why they are used in politics as well .
When I say "CTers" or something like that, I am only referring to people who believe in the conspiracy related to the topic of the thread. Being fairly new here still, I am learning the nuances of a more precise approach to my inputs, rather than hammering away.
The media gets it wrong for many reasons. Mostly because they report information before it has been confirmed, they also take confirmed information and and twist it to tell a better story or suit their own political agenda. My take is if you want official news listen to the officials, not what someone says an official said. Conspiracy theories do not need disinformation from the media to start, it helps but only because people refuse to except any evidence that refutes the misinformation after the fact. The media reports something wrong, then corrects itself, this then confirms to the believers, that the first report is true because its all a lie anyway.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
" ... people refuse to except any evidence that refutes the misinformation after the fact. The media reports something wrong, then corrects itself, this then confirms to the believers, ... "
And that's the nub right there. Some people want to believe, full stop. Confirmation bias. If it agrees with their own bias then it must be true, if not then there's a cover-up. The 'creeping sharia' meme is a classic case, and pretty much a replication of the anti-semitism of the early to mid 20th century when the right-wing continually talked up Jewish plans to take over the world. The same fervour, the same bullshit, and of course it's folk on the right again. And despite some people claiming they have Muslim friends, yet continuing to talk about some vague threat of Islamic law becoming the norm, it is racist.
And that's the nub right there. Some people want to believe, full stop. Confirmation bias. If it agrees with their own bias then it must be true, if not then there's a cover-up. The 'creeping sharia' meme is a classic case, and pretty much a replication of the anti-semitism of the early to mid 20th century when the right-wing continually talked up Jewish plans to take over the world. The same fervour, the same bullshit, and of course it's folk on the right again. And despite some people claiming they have Muslim friends, yet continuing to talk about some vague threat of Islamic law becoming the norm, it is racist.
Chuck
Active Member
Actually, Joe, I heard that bit of zaniness very early on. The blood of these victims wasn't even dry when the conspiracy blogs began churning out the "there's no blood in the boat" theory... so they shot him or cut him to keep him from talking. I guess they forgot that the kid could actually read and write. He stopped "talking" after he was read his Miranda rights.
And many of these same blogs are still spewing the nonsense that the victims were "crisis actors". This kind of stuff is revolting to me. Why don't they do some research instead of demeaning the dead and the maimed? Fake blood and smoke bombs? It's ridiculous. The bottom line is that when the truth doesn't fit one's paradigm, it must be altered, even if it requires believing stupid things. Conspiratorialists begin with the presupposition that the U.S. government is the root of all evil (and I'm no fan of expansive government so I'm no shill for the govt), so they will go to all necessary lengths to prove it.
[video=youtube_share;tKcaJuDKlss]http://youtu.be/tKcaJuDKlss[/video]
Chuck
Active Member
Yeah, Joe, I agree. Anyone, whether it be someone in the media, a politician or conspiratorialist, using this event to promote their own agenda, demeans those who loss life and limb. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" seems to be the motto of too many. Exploitation seems to be an incurable disease.
I don't have to think the government wants to make me sick, kill me, falsely imprison me, wants me poor or try and make my life as miserable as the people who believe crazy things like smoke bombs, crisis actors or black ops soldiers planting bombs obviously think their lives are, in order to disagree with or not like my government.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
One of the problems with folks 'claiming' that politicians 'use' disasters is that often, it is more a case of them reacting to feelings of citizens. A good example is the temporary moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, instituted right after the Macondo well blow out. Many folks wanted to say that the President was anti oil and such (of course there are others that complain that the oil companies 'bought him'--never can please all folks). I was complaining to my hubby, the geophysical engineer who has worked in the oil industry, about it (I felt it was an overreaction). My hubby pointed out that folks were demanding it, and it one had NOT been applied, that even a minor spill would make it even worse for the oil companies.
A politician has a responsibility to listen to what citizens say, not just the loudest and shrillest (like the callers on some radio shows) but ALL of the people, if they don't then they are ignoring the wishes of the people.
Gun control is a current example, the loud crowd is against it, while a majority of folks are for some things like background checks and limitations on some types of guns/magazines.
A politician has a responsibility to listen to what citizens say, not just the loudest and shrillest (like the callers on some radio shows) but ALL of the people, if they don't then they are ignoring the wishes of the people.
Gun control is a current example, the loud crowd is against it, while a majority of folks are for some things like background checks and limitations on some types of guns/magazines.
Being the loudest and the shrillest is exactly what it takes to make things happen. Some polls put the majority you speak of at 90% but the 10% are louder. You cannot just yell we want change, people need to DEMAND THEY WANT SOMETHING CHANGED. If 90% want new gun laws then 90% of the people need to call, write, Tweet, Facebook or email the people in charge and demand they make changes.
That and donate to the cause. lol
J
Joe
Guest
majority ? You want mob rule?
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
Majority? You want democracy?
J
Joe
Guest
No I dont want a democracy that is mob rule . We are a democratic republic . Much different .
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
So you say. But when it matters, like in the matter of gun control, you don't want to heed the people who disagree and side with the minority who are most vocal. The mob, in fact.
Meh. A nominal democratic republic, which looks to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a surveillance/police state. Habeas corpus? An executive who gave himself the right to execute anyone, anywhere, anytime? Agencies that can record and monitor all communications?
What's most fascinating is that people still believe that it's a democracy. It's been an oligarchy for quite some time, and is getting worse.
J
Joe
Guest
Oligarchy ? I finally agree with you on something . Thats exactly what we've become and been for some time now .
MikeC
Closed Account
J
Joe
Guest
You must not watch much American News ? killing with drones your own citizens let alone innocent civilians ? Spying on your own citizens ? using The IRS to target your enemies . Gun running into Mexico and from Libya into Turkey for Syrian rebels . Nope he pretty much got it right .
You want to know why I know America is not a police state? Because all the people complaining we live in a police state haven't been thrown in prison simply for complaining that it is a police state!
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
Feel free to identify the exaggerations. Your president HAS given himself the authority to have anyone he chooses executed. This week in Congress it was admitted that a fourth American citizen had been executed by drone strike, without any charges being made against him, without recourse to the law. The FBI has been monitoring emails since 2000, using their 'Carnivore' program. Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, admitted on CNN that ALL phone calls in the US are recorded. Can you think of a single public space in your city that isn't covered by CCTV?
Looks like a surveillance state to me.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
Moot point for the world's largest prison population. Previous autocratic states imprisoned dissenters because they posed a threat. However, in the US today the propaganda machine that is Media (90% of which is controlled by 6 corporations) is not under threat from dissenters, so everyone is permitted to speak freely, although they won't be heard by the majority of the population. Instead, the US targets a different section of its population, and per capita has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world. Higher even than in the USSR under Stalin. Meanwhile, police and 'security' agencies get more and more powers, in their 'wars' on drugs and terrorism. The latter is rather hilarious, given the context of this thread: why did the Boston bombers slip through the FBI net? Because all their resources were being used to monitor and track those nefarious individuals in the Occupy Boston movement.
http://frugaldad.com/media-consolidation-infographic/
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Is that really why they slipped through? I'm not sure of that. What percentage of the FBI's entire resources were used to monitor the Occupy people?
We now know the Occupy movement was rather benign, but at the time, how does one determine if they are nefarious or not without first having the FBI investigate them? That is the FBI's job, isn't it?
People really need to read up on their world history. Americas incarceration rate might be the highest, on paper. If you dig deep though you will find that China imprisons people under Laogai. Estimated to have 3-5 million in forced labor camps. Stalin? Seriously? You're going to compare the fact the Stalin didn't imprison as many of his people? Seriously? That is probably because Stalin didn't imprison people, HE KILLED THEM! Over 20 million! Then you bring up protests? Pretty sure if this was a police state, people wouldn't be having protests and if they did, they wouldn't be investigated, they would be arrested or just shot on sight. America might have a problem locking up non-violent first time drug users, but that does not equal a police state. The examples you give contradict your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai
http://laogai.org/system/files/lrf_laogai_factsheet.pdf
ColtCabana
Senior Member
Speaking of a "police state" I'm still waiting for someone to show me a shred of evidence that Boston was a "police state" during the supposed "lockdown."
I'll never understand how the media changing their story (or the investigation team/government changing their story for that matter) is evidence of a false flag attack. This is where people who believe in false flag attacks by our own government really need to understand the term "hypothesis." It would be like me showing you a two second clip of a movie and me getting mad when you can't give me the proper plot of the entire film.
I'll never understand how the media changing their story (or the investigation team/government changing their story for that matter) is evidence of a false flag attack. This is where people who believe in false flag attacks by our own government really need to understand the term "hypothesis." It would be like me showing you a two second clip of a movie and me getting mad when you can't give me the proper plot of the entire film.
Perhaps, but "not quite as bad as China" is not exactly what we are shooting for. American is not a police state, but it is very much a world leader in incarceration. Especially if you compare it against Western Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.
Last edited:
Chuck
Active Member
CC, that's a perfect analogy. As I can testify, when one presumes that the government is the perpetrator of all evil, it is a natural conclusion that even the slightest nuance of confusion is proof of a grand overarching conspiratorial design. Listen, I don't presume to speak for others, but suffice it to say at one time my mindset was so engulfed by conspiracism, that I could manipulate and connect every dot to form the most beautiful conspiratorial tapestry. And I could do it with what I thought was a demonstration of the most strident intellectual honesty. Once one begins with a premise (which I unwittingly did), facts will be coalesced and conjoined in whatever way necessary to prove one's conclusions. However, although I can see the great value of debunking (I thank Mick and others for leading the way), I don't want to assume that everything is bunk in need of being debunked. If possible I'd prefer to at least attempt to stay neutral.
I think this article sheds some light on my former worldview. Conspiracism as a Flawed Worldview
Regarding your comment about the "Police state"... Though I don't currently subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Boston massacre, I was rather unnerved by the tanks rolling through the neighborhoods while law enforcement went house to house. These two thugs shut down an entire city and I don't think that was a healthy precedent. The exchange of liberty for false safety most often is not a good thing.
The problem is that those who were equally put-off with the law enforcement reaction, jumped too far. Since they had already determined that "martial law" was the goal of the gatekeepers, everything leading up to the lock-down MUST have been part of the design. So although I believe the CT perceptions were skewed by presupposition, I agree with them to the extent that the constant encroachment of freedom is problematic. I am neither a fan of the Patriot Act nor the NDAA.
CC, did you think the law enforcement response was appropriate?
Chuck
Active Member
If we were to remove the 50% incarcerated in federal prisons and the 25% incarcerated in state prisons due to drug related offenses, the numbers wouldn't be quite as skewed. And yes, Mick, I agree, China shouldn't be used as the gold standard.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.tcH8olg4.dpbs
If we were to remove the 50% incarcerated in federal prisons and the 25% incarcerated in state prisons due to drug related offenses, the numbers wouldn't be quite as skewed. And yes, Mick, I agree, China shouldn't be used as the gold standard.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.tcH8olg4.dpbs
Er, why should we remove them?
Chuck
Active Member
Perhaps I'm missing the point but I don't think their addition paints an accurate picture of the U.S. prison population.
I think the total number of people in prison is a very accurate picture of the U.S. prison population. Why would it matter if they were in there for drugs? Of course that drug numbers greatly inflate the population, but that's part of the problem. Ignoring them is like saying "our prison population is not that bad if you ignore the people who should not be in there"
If anything the drug prisoners are the closest thing we have to political prisoners, and as such are more indicative of the police-state-ness of the country than the "normal" prisoners.
Chuck
Active Member
By arguing that our prison population should be far less (were it not for the drug offenders/political prisoners), I was attempting to make the same point. I agree with your conclusions.
I wasn't trying to deny that America has a high incarceration rate or that China should be a gold standard. Only that what you see on paper isn't always the whole truth. That a high incarceration rate does not mean police state. That what happens in a real police state is nothing like America.If we were to remove the 50% incarcerated in federal prisons and the 25% incarcerated in state prisons due to drug related offenses, the numbers wouldn't be quite as skewed. And yes, Mick, I agree, China shouldn't be used as the gold standard.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.tcH8olg4.dpbs
It is not like the majority of people incarcerated are innocent though. We have a high rate because we have a lot of criminals. I think this is a unavoidable consequence of living in such an openly free nation. The more you allow people to be free the more they will abuse that freedom. As I mentioned before, I think first time non-violent, non-felon drug users should receive treatment. This would reduce a large percentage. It helps to remember that people have to want treatment for it to work. I don't think the fiscal situation in America will allow for such large scale state payed treatment currently though. I think marijuana should and probably will be decriminalized at some point but that is still a ways off. California makes up a big percentage of the overall incarceration rate in the U.S., mostly because of gangs and drugs.
Similar threads
