FBI disputes mother's claim they tracked elder bombing suspect (Here we go)

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Ok, FBI is saying they don't know what the mother is talking about. They have never had any contact with the young men. The only time was at the request of the foreign government (Russia). Since that time they claim there has been no contact.

The FBI is so credible I guess we will have to take their word for it
Anyway this is the story the msm is running with right now. Heads up.


Washington (CNN) -- The FBI has flatly rejected an assertion by the mother of the two suspected Boston bombers that the bureau had been tracking her oldest son and had spoken with him last week after the deadly marathon bombing.

The chief spokesman for the FBI, Mike Kortan, said he continues to stand by an FBI statement issued Friday that said that the only communication the FBI ever had with Tamerlan Tsarnaev was an interview agents conducted with him in 2011 at the urging of a foreign government, since identified as Russia.


Here's the rest




posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


I trust everything the alphabet agencies are stating.

Point me to the nearest bridge.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Well, I am not sure. Before they put out the images of the two brothers, they were looking for Sunil Tripathi, who they had put the image out for.

So why would they do this if they knew already who they were going to shaft for it? When you think about the events coherently, and not looking for an angle to wedge the foot of conspiracy into, it doesn't make sense.

It turns out he came forward and denied any involvement and the FBI, after further investigation, focused on the brothers.

As far as I know, they were simply suspects right up until they decided to go green beret on boston. So once again, there seems little correlation that they were going to be shafted for something in some pre-planned scheme.

For all we know, the mother may have been seeing strange men in suits speaking to her son in the days prior and after the bombing, and they may have been part of whatever activities he was involved with to terrorise the community. I doubt many people involved in organised terror cells would be walking about in full arab get up and espousing anti-west rhetoric.

The parents will certainly not want to admit their son was capable of being a murderer. Surely, that is understandable.

You have to wonder about the level of inadequacy that seems to be involved in this - is it because there was actually a lot of really bad policing, or is it because every blogger, reddittor or /b/tard was posting pictures of all and sundry with drawings and schematics and blurry things that look out of place?

I'm leaning on it being 99% internet try hards... 1% unknown. rather than an incapable investigation.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
Ok, FBI is saying they don't know what the mother is talking about. They have never had any contact with the young men. The only time was at the request of the foreign government (Russia). Since that time they claim there has been no contact.

The FBI is so credible I guess we will have to take their word for it





They did?

I'm SO SHOCKED!!!

Never except for at the request of Russia. Wonder what Russia has on them?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


I trust everything the alphabet agencies are stating.

Point me to the nearest bridge.


I trust people on the internet with no clue and a whole lot of spare time.

Point me to the nearest bottle of whiskey.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


I am not one to trust them and they should be investigated on this to increase the credibility of the case if nothing else. But the immediate assumption that the mother MUST be telling the truth is a little unfounded, don't you think?

Why is it more likely she is lying than the FBI? And does she have any proof of their contact with her sons?

No one can jump on any side in this disagreement, because there is no evidence to believe either. But people on ATS will obviously now include this as some kind of "proof" of it being an inside job too



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


I trust everything the alphabet agencies are stating.

Point me to the nearest bridge.


I trust people on the internet with no clue and a whole lot of spare time.

Point me to the nearest bottle of whiskey.


+ paranoid delusions.

I will never understand... (A) was caught, admitted lying in the past = (B) must be telling the truth.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
There is also a woman who rides bicycle all around US and have been riding decades, because she thinks FBI is on her tail.. paranoia.

Tho i can understand if they have been questioned once, paranoia can happen. And when group of people feeds paranoia to each others ... it accelerates.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 





I trust people on the internet with no clue and a whole lot of spare time.



Yes...I have no clue..sorry for polluting the bandwidth.

Maybe you can pull some strings and ban the net for all us retards...



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





I will never understand... (A) was caught, admitted lying in the past = (B) must be telling the truth.



me 2. Your (any) govt has been caught lying many times, presidents, senators, govt people....yet still...the official word is always a the trusted one. Because he lied about that, but this is too serious.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


First of all I don't think the online postings or bloggings or what have you have anything to do with the news I posted. I think you are just going off on a tangent.

Here is the subject we are focusing on, stay close now: The FBI is saying they never had contact with the boys, Mom is saying, "yes, they did."

That is where we are right now.

It is she says this, they say that.

Who are you going to believe?? IMO the FBI has less than zero credibility. But that's just me

.
edit on 22-4-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dollukka
 


It's all good. Her bike is lojacked and the feds can apprehend her anytime they wish.




posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Over here on the left coast we call it going "all East Oakland".

Anyway...you make so many assumptions and take so many diversions, you make me dizzy.

I still liked you other avi better.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


Hey don't trip on that guy. He is always getting on someone's case from what I have seen. You are just fine



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Because she came up first. That's right. She was the one that started flipping out and calling the FBI out. Then all of a sudden the story leaks out about how the older boy was investigated by the FBI at the request of a foreign country. All the sudden the story starts spinning. This woman was screaming from the get.

That's how I know.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by boncho
 





I will never understand... (A) was caught, admitted lying in the past = (B) must be telling the truth.



me 2. Your (any) govt has been caught lying many times, presidents, senators, govt people....yet still...the official word is always a the trusted one. Because he lied about that, but this is too serious.



Governments lie yes, individuals in the Government lie for their own personal or professional gain, but that does not mean Alex Jones or a YouTube personality are automatically telling the truth, nor does it lend credence or give validity to any of their theories.

Simple as that.

The best you can do is try to process the information from all angles and make a judgement. See how I left out the whole "believe" part.

Choosing to believe something, based on words alone tends to land you in a hot mess.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Agreed...but sometimes it's not about trusting what I heard...but simply processing something, and deciding whether it is possible or not.

I'm not claiming anything here...I'm just stating...that because I know that truth doesn't always reach the public, I'm always leaning towards the officials lying...because..they have an interest in it. During the course of my life...I have come to know...that interests come first...truth only after that...and if it suits the purpose.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
Ok, FBI is saying they don't know what the mother is talking about.



FBI spokesman isn't lying. He doesn't know #. The left hand purposely doesn't know what the right hand is
jacking.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


I value your opinions (that I have read), as they give me fresh perspectives and lead my to further study.

I have to ask though, which is more reliable: a grieving mother who has two sons accused of a terrorist act, or a government agency?

I trust the FBI/CIA/NSA about as far as I can throw a piano. I have personal interactions with them in Iraq and Africa that will forever leave a bad taste. But, I have never heard a parent/sibling/neighbor come out and say a person was bad or deserved what they got.

I think the truth is out there in the middle somewhere.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
The FBI is just as credible to me as the mother of a suspected terrorist bomber.

The burden of proof is either with the FBI or the mother to prove without a shadow of a doubt what they are claiming is true.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join