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

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by artnut

 

Not really the crime against humanity you're making it out to be either though is it?

I said she lost credibility, not that she committed a crime against humanity. She said she is a lawyer, so she should know better. It is her job to defend people accused of wrong doing, or to bring cases of wrong doing. Seriously? People think this is just a little bump in the road? She could be disbarred and convicted of a felony, spend time in jail, but hey, this is no worse than littering, right?

reply to post by artnut


Well you're using quite emotive language and you clearly don't have all the facts is all I'm saying.
As far as I'm aware a past convicts testimony is still admissible in court, so what she says about her own children shouldn't be dismissed out of hand - especially since the FBI has been caught lying many many many times - Cointelpro is a great example actual laws were broken - but you don't dismiss everything the FBI says do you?

en.wikipedia.org...

(My favourite bit from all of that is the fake Black Panther Colouring book that the FBI produced to prove that the black panthers were training kids to shoot cops - it's actually laughable and all proven )

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
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.

You have a good point, perhaps. Something about human nature.

But isn't it also in their best interest to maintain the security of the nation? Does the FBI NOT want to investigate crime and abuse, and if so, why???? As I understand it, the FBI belongs to the United States Department of Justice. Thus, like any arm of the judicial system, it's in their interest to investigate and support judicial proceedings, no? Who wants to let bad guys go? Bad guys?

Last I checked, people who study to enter the justice system want to fight crime. THAT is in their best interests because: a) it pays the bills b) a safe country is a good country to live in.

NOW, if I knew that a drug lord kingpin was working in a high position at the FBI then I'd start to see things your way. But until you give me evidence like that, I can't think you're serious.

It's like somebody saying a doctor wants people to be sick to keep his job, but that's just dumb. The sad fact of this world is that people get sick and die all the time. No need for evil doctors.

I think you're jaded. YOu need a vacation from yer jadedness.

The toughest part of being a cop probably is handing out tickets to speeders even though you'd rather be patting them on the back and wishing em well. Society isn't a perfect thing. On a similar level, it probably is tiring when for the billionth time an intelligence agent reads/hears another conspiracy accusing them of working with the reptillians to destroy freedom and prosperity. I think sometimes we all just need time away. The world can really stretch people and challenge them.

Fact: Oftentimes things are as they appear to be. Crime fighters are just crime fighters. Racecar drivers are just racecar drivers. A forum poster is just a forum poster, not a disinformation agent. The president is just another politician trying to make a mark, not a manchurian candidate.

reply to post by winofiend


Because very likely not everyone was aware of who was to be the guilty party. Not everyone is included in the inner workings.

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.

reply to post by opethPA

The FBI is just as credible to me as the mother of a suspected terrorist bomber.

Really,. I think that's naive.

From wiki

After the bombing, Salem claimed that the FBI knew about the bombing plot, and agreed to foil it by supplying fake explosives to him. Salem taped his telephone conversations with FBI agents. Those tapes were provided to defense lawyers, although they were not used in the trial. In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office, denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks.

Can't read anything like this about mom.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by artnut

 

Well you're using quite emotive language and you clearly don't have all the facts is all I'm saying.
As far as I'm aware a past convicts testimony is still admissible in court, so what she says about her own children shouldn't be dismissed out of hand - especially since the FBI has been caught lying many many many times - Cointelpro is a great example actual laws were broken - but you don't dismiss everything the FBI says do you?

en.wikipedia.org...

(My favourite bit from all of that is the fake Black Panther Colouring book that the FBI produced to prove that the black panthers were training kids to shoot cops - it's actually laughable and all proven

)

I never said her testimony should not be dismissed out of hand. Her credibility as a witness to character should be questioned if she herself is of questionable character. I don't have all the facts, of course not, but neither do you. Rest assured, if called as a character witness, she will be scrutinized. The other thing I think is interesting is that it is not just theft she was accused of, there are also the two counts of malicious / wanton damage and or defacement to property, so what is that all about?

You assume I buy into all of the stories the media and or government is presenting simply because I am questioning her character. I am not, and I think this whole thing is a big fat mess that we will never get to the end of, much like Bhenghazi. Nor do I think that we will ever hear the real story from the government. I am simply responding to this thread by saying you might want to question her veracity as well as everyone elses. I would not be on a conspiracy theory site to begin with if I did not question what I heard. Questioning should always be done on both sides, though, right?

I really don't get the emotive language bit, though. What is emotive about saying I think she lost her credibility?

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.

You mean like yourself?

People working for "alphabet agencies" are on the net as much as anyone else I would bet. People do comment from work and are not all stupid losers with no clue and to "much spare time".

Don't drink thanks.

Originally posted by dollukka
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.

You seem to have a habit of comparing apples to oranges. You said before, "like Casey Anthony" how can a Mother killing her own child have any comparison to what we are talking about.
Now you compare a paranoid delusional bike rider...?

reply to post by GrantedBail

the story leaks out about how the older boy was investigated by the FBI at the request of a foreign country.

Which makes them the perfect patsies to set up.

reply to post by 200Plus

But, I have never heard a parent/sibling/neighbor come out and say a person was bad or deserved what they got.

This is often true, but in all the cases I have gone over they never outright make up a lie like that either.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Rocker2013


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

Really? That is a question that needs to be asked?

And does she have any proof of their contact with her sons?

Not any more the FBI came and took it all... well that is what she will say...

What proof could she have anyway beyond her word I doubt they all posed for photos.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
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."

Not true. The FBI said they investigated the older brother in 2011 but have not been 'tracking' him.

Originally posted by artnut
I just read an article about the mother shoplifting at a Lord and Taylor department store. I saw what looked like a mug shot, so if this is true, she has lost any credibility in my opinion.

Well if her credibility is to be slammed, we will probably find next she was a felon and an armed robber, or worse.

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'm assuming the mother just assumed the FBI was still following her sons, from the previous years' tip off and subsequent FBI visit. I doubt the FBI was actually actively involved with these guys other than their initial investigation based on the Russian tip.

Do we know anymore about how that came about? Did the Russians not like that these boys were living comfortably as Americans and going to college and ready to wrestle as he said "In the olympics for the USA and not for Russia until people are free" something close to that.
Then they make frequent trips to Russia, maybe someone did not like that.

Originally posted by artnut

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by artnut

 

Not really the crime against humanity you're making it out to be either though is it?

I said she lost credibility, not that she committed a crime against humanity. She said she is a lawyer, so she should know better. It is her job to defend people accused of wrong doing, or to bring cases of wrong doing. Seriously? People think this is just a little bump in the road? She could be disbarred and convicted of a felony, spend time in jail, but hey, this is no worse than littering, right?

she was charged with larceny of women’s clothing, which was valued at $1,624. Additionally, she was charged with two counts of malicious damage to property.

When i try to see her side of the story the link is Error 500 Internal Server Error. Every lead i find to the outcome or their side of the story is missing.

I would assume if she is a lawyer and she was proved guilty there would be information, was she found guilty even.

Everything says was accused nothing says she was found guilty of.

Well, i think moms telling the truth...

And after 9/11, the FBI has once again been caught, wanting, lacking, failing, sleeping etc and with it's pant's down.

Me thinks it time for a litle damage control, beacuse if moms telling the truth, and the fed's should have been controlling these two much more closely, heads should publicly roll...

Doesn't even need to have been a false flag for the FBI to want to cover this up, it'd just be someone high up saving their ass and hiding a screw up...

Wild speculation is still going on. Going to be a while before we get the story straight.

Originally posted by UMayBRite!

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.

Maybe plausible deniability. I can wonder at this point how much a lack
of information facilitates mobility... at any rate the information being
regarded as political capital has to hit the point we might be noticing now.
Nobody 'in the middle' has a clear enough picture of reality up there to
be able to do their job. That's where that mobility can get real handy,
especially when the mobility is illegal activity bordering on treason.
Oh wait.. I forgot I haven't got clearance to read YOUR post. Scrub that.

Edit:/sarc off/ good point these guys are working in some narrow rat maze
almost all the time, and we're giving the operators/agents too much BOTD.

reply to post by randyvs


Hey you beat me to it! How is it that the FBI is still a credible agency after knowing, allowing, and supplying the explosives in the 1993 WTC bombings?

According to artnut, they should probably be shut down all together.