Boston Conspiracy Theorists - Please Answer

page: 1
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+29 more 
posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
So there are a few theories out there right now making the rounds that many are jumping on with their usual gusto. There's everything from the "they're all actors!" story to the "military did it!" crowd. The motive for any false flag is as unknown to them and us as the motive for the brothers accused of it. But there are some things I would like to point out to those who are determined to believe one story with little evidence, instead of the commonly believed story with some evidence...

I would love to have some answers from conspiracy theorists here who believe the unlikely scenarios instead of the more likely narrative we have.

1. If the brothers were innocent, why didn't they do what others identified in images by guys on 4chan and hand themselves in the moment their images were seen on TV? An innocent person would have seen that and immediately attended the local police station ready to clear their name. So, please explain that to me. If you believe the brothers were duped into it in some way, this still applies, why didn't they surrender and why did they seemingly then go on the run armed with guns and bombs?

2. The images of the two Craft International guys (if that's indeed who they are) have been taken out of context and a fictional time line added. People are claiming that one of them is seen after the blasts without his bag. In fact, the image of the two in the street was taken immediately after the explosions, and both are seen WITH their bags. Why do you accept the false narrative when the evidence is there for all to see that BOTH these men had BOTH their bags immediately after the explosion, are you not embarrassed that you didn't check this before believing that story?

3. For those who believe the common "actors" story... how do you explain medical professionals, volunteers, BPD and race officials not noticing that there were no real injuries? Do you believe that all those present were actors? Thousands of them? If not, how many actors were there? Did they replace all the police who work there every year? How do you explain all the hospital staff who would have dealt with the injuries? Do you also claim that all those nurses, doctors and surgeons were all "replaced" by actors after the event? And if so, where are the doctors and nurses who would have been on duty and why haven't they asked why they all had a couple of days off at the same time, while strangers are appearing on the TV giving news briefings in their uniform?

4. If it were a false flag and the two were "convinced" into doing it, why is the younger brother still alive? Would it not make a lot more sense - given that they have already killed three and maimed more than 150 - that one more life wouldn't be much to end? So, if these "mysterious people" can convince those brothers to take two explosive devices into the crowd, kill three, wound more than a hundred, why would they let them live? Do you not think they could have killed them in the days after, when both brothers were behaving as they normally would have? Why would such a loose end be left dangling?

5. Why did those brothers then have a shoot out with police in the street, and how did those "innocent" brothers get hold of explosives if they were innocent? I will concede that we have no factual evidence ourselves of any of that happening, but this is the narrative we have, and there would have been numerous local BPD involved in that - did they all just "imagine" the bullets and bombs?

Please, I would really like some responses to these questions, because there are a lot of people here who are so eager to refuse all the logical questions and follow the more unlikely and implausible narratives when there is so much less to prove any of them.

If you are able to, I'd love to see some logical answers to these questions. Lets see if you can convince me that this was a false flag in one way or another
edit on 22-4-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Lets be honest here... Even if it's not a "false flag" like others are claiming, it's still an event that will be used to force more government control.

This was Obama's 9/11, and it's his time to shine. You seem a little bit upset that people would consider this to be a conspiracy considering governments in the past are guilty of being liars, and killing millions.. So can you really blame people for questioning the official story, considering they've been burned over the years?


Talk about a bad analogy: Appearing on television recently, former Hillary Clinton campaign adviser and current public relations executive Mark Penn suggested that President Obama needs a moment “similar” to the tragic terrorist attack on the Oklahoma City federal building, in order to “reconnect” with voters


Now clearly he's not trying to woo voters, but his approval ratings have tanked, and he needed something to uphold his image.

My thoughts, false flag or not, it's just another nail in the coffin of freedom.. if you don't believe government will use this like they have used every other tragedy, then you're clearly hiding under a rock.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Just heard on the news that the US wants to revoke Tsarnaev's right to a defense. Take that and the fact he was shot in the throat and it's beginning to look like someone doesn't want him talking. Though he has apparently made a written statement. Wonder what that says.
edit on 22-4-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


Thank you. I see a silver lining though this time. There seems to be more rational threads than in the past.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Amazing thread OP,

I think it will be very interesting to see some of the responses to this thread.

Sometimes bad things just happen with a CIA back ops teams sitting in the background pulling the strings

S&F


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
1) so you've had contacts with CIA officials who duped you into something, then afterwards you her you're now being accused of being the bomber. You just turn yourself in and hope for the best? Very clever indeed! Not... IF he didnt do it, who's going to believe him, according to you?

4) wasnt the boat he was hiding in completely shot to bits? Weren't they surprised he got out alive? You prove the point of a conspiracy actually, they DID try to kill him, they failed and they were amazed by it themselves.


Im not taking either side, it's just starting to get hilarious how every event in the US turns out the same. You're probably going to suggest this is the same everywhere but its not. Where I live we had an incident with live grenades a couple years back. The authorities were very open about the entire case, there was little left to speculate about. But not in the US, where they put every event wide open for conspiracy thinking.

My question to you; why is this? Why the plot-twists EVERY GOD DAMN TIME SOMETHING HAPPENS IN YOUR COUNTRY?? Its never cut and dry, there is ALWAYS a movie like scenario taking place, with surprises, mysterious unanswered inconsistencies,...They ask for it, so dont blame the people that RIGHTFULLY stumble over all these gigantic problems with almost every OS in the US history.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
The boat was shot up by rubber bullets. Just to let the guy know they were serious (if they weren't rubber bullets he would have had more than a jaw injury). And OP, you may want to change the title of the thread, which now reads "Bonston..." Boston would work better.

Thanks for the very good thread and reasonable thoughts. It's fun to have flights of both fancy and taking both logic and illogic to their natural conclusions and beyond. Yet when the facts settle in, usually the bad guys are bad guys, and the media is as confused as lemurs in a chocolate factory, and, what, extras are hired to have their legs blown off for union scale? In all likelihood these guys did the deed, based on the older brother who had some sick reason, and they killed lots of innocent people for nothing more than one be shot up like a dog and then have the little brother waste away in some solitary cell for the next 50 years (if he doesn't ride the gurney into the little viewing room instead).
edit on 22-4-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-4-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Good questions OP and ones you will probably not get answered.

It is like a self fulfilling prophecy when it comes to conspiracies. There has been so many conspiracies out there that they actually breed more conspiracies. It is human nature to see one conspiracy and then go looking for more because once one conspiracy is believed then there will be doubt in all. a "fool me once... " kinda deal.

Thing is... even if a tragedy happens that was not a "conspiracy" then it will be THOUGHT OF as a conspiracy.

What gets me is people who don't believe anything that didn't originate out of their own heads and world view. Show them a picture they will claim photoshop and it goes on ad nauseum. It doesn't matter that the evidence in this case shows two young punks gone wild and bombiing and shooting up the neighborhood. To some, there just HAS to be a puppeteer behind it because they have seen it before. Inductive reasoning at its finest.

Now we have the "Magic Backpack Theory".

But OP... thanks again for adding a little reason to the madness and adding very good questions.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7
Lets be honest here... Even if it's not a "false flag" like others are claiming, it's still an event that will be used to force more government control.


That's debatable, and remains to be seen. Lets also not forget that the American people have the power to lobby their elected, and that's is seemingly rarely done. If this is of real concern, why isn't anyone protesting in the streets about it?

I can accept that things like this could be used to persuade the public to do something, but there needs to be evidence of that, not just the a knee-jerk belief by suspicious and paranoid people.

Those responsible for making the accusation are also responsible for proving it.


Originally posted by eXia7
This was Obama's 9/11, and it's his time to shine. You seem a little bit upset that people would consider this to be a conspiracy considering governments in the past are guilty of being liars, and killing millions.. So can you really blame people for questioning the official story, considering they've been burned over the years?


I am upset that people would refuse all intelligence and logic to believe that this is a conspiracy, yes. People have died, more than 100 were injured, and people here search images of the gory aftermath claiming exposed bones and shredded flesh is all make-believe! You're damn right I find that offensive.

I also agree that governments have been guilty of misleading the public in the past, and going to war to kill thousands based on lies. But there is NO irrefutable evidence that the US government (or any part of it) has ever attacked its own citizens, despite millions of hours by hundreds of thousands of people desperately trying to prove it.

After a decade of investigations into 9/11, and even though there are a lot of strange things about it, no one has yet come up with a smoking gun to prove that it was a false flag.


Originally posted by eXia7
My thoughts, false flag or not, it's just another nail in the coffin of freedom.. if you don't believe government will use this like they have used every other tragedy, then you're clearly hiding under a rock.


That remains to be seen, doesn't it? I don't see Obama rushing to start carpet bombing a city like Bush did. We can get back to this when there is some suggestion of rights being eroded again, and see what happens. Right now, there is no evidence of that happening at all. It's too early to make that accusation when nothing has changed yet.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
Just heard on the news that the US wants to revoke Tsarnaev's right to a defense. Take that and the fact he was shot in the throat and it's beginning to look like someone doesn't want him talking. Though he has apparently made a written statement. Wonder what that says.
edit on 22-4-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)


If someone doesn't want him talking, why didn't they kill him in the days after when he was doing what he usually did like an average kid?
Are we supposed to believe that the people who did this and made him their puppet could manage to shoot him in the neck, but then decided not to kill him? Where is the logic in that?

Why didn't they kill him when they had the chance to, and why is he still alive under armed guard?

I will agree on the Miranda rights issue. This should not be the case. Every American considered a suspect in a crime whether it's theft or mass murder deserves to be read their rights, no one should be able to pick and choose which crimes are too severe. This is another argument though, and the reading of his Miranda rights has no effect on whether he talks or not.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Good thread OP. Almost a shelter from the storm, in a way.

Hoping to see some answers in the same reasonable manner as the questions asked.

However, I am expecting too much, I fear.

Watching patiently



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strawberry88
1) so you've had contacts with CIA officials who duped you into something, then afterwards you her you're now being accused of being the bomber. You just turn yourself in and hope for the best? Very clever indeed! Not... IF he didnt do it, who's going to believe him, according to you?


What's the alternative, spending the rest of your life on the run, plastic surgery, imminent death? I would suggest that going on the run when you're are a prime suspect in a terrorist attack is the dumbest move either of them could have made had they actually been innocent.


Originally posted by Strawberry88
4) wasnt the boat he was hiding in completely shot to bits? Weren't they surprised he got out alive? You prove the point of a conspiracy actually, they DID try to kill him, they failed and they were amazed by it themselves.


Was it shot to bits? Please show me the evidence of that, because the evidence I have seen shows the boat fully intact.
You still haven't answered the question though, if he was surrounded by men firing at him, and they were shocked they still hadn't killed him, why did no one put a bullet in his head as they were "supposed" to do?

Why is he still alive if he is just a patsy?


Originally posted by Strawberry88
My question to you; why is this? Why the plot-twists EVERY GOD DAMN TIME SOMETHING HAPPENS IN YOUR COUNTRY?? Its never cut and dry, there is ALWAYS a movie like scenario taking place, with surprises, mysterious unanswered inconsistencies,...They ask for it, so dont blame the people that RIGHTFULLY stumble over all these gigantic problems with almost every OS in the US history.


Simple answer? An out of control press who sensationalize everything to the point where they are almost making things up themselves for the ratings. That's all.
The media in the USA jumps all over a story like this and every fart in a slight breeze becomes "another explosion!!!!" That is then woven into the narrative people use to explain what they already believe.

We've seen it in this case, right after it, there were suspicious packages that turned out to be nothing after a controlled explosion, but people here were still weaving that into their big grand conspiracy days after! There are still people now claiming that other devices and explosions were covered up. It all depends what side people believe, and then they add and manufacture "facts" to bolster their argument, even when those supposed facts can be debunked very easily.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by eXia7
Lets be honest here... Even if it's not a "false flag" like others are claiming, it's still an event that will be used to force more government control.


That's debatable, and remains to be seen. Lets also not forget that the American people have the power to lobby their elected, and that's is seemingly rarely done. If this is of real concern, why isn't anyone protesting in the streets about it?

I can accept that things like this could be used to persuade the public to do something, but there needs to be evidence of that, not just the a knee-jerk belief by suspicious and paranoid people.

Those responsible for making the accusation are also responsible for proving it.


Well, lets take the "Lock down" aka Martial Law incident into account. The fact that they allowed a terrorist to run around the city, while making people stay in their homes and cower in fear, while they come in and save the day with their para-military forces, riding on the clouds of justice, to make a swift blow to the terrorist! Put on this exaggerated man-hunt, and just make people feel powerless in their presence.

I agree with your questions, they are very well thought out questions, and still a lot of details are emerging, so there still aren't exact answers to them. It's still unfolding, there is still time for a lot of inconsistencies to come out. But, my general belief is that no matter which "terrorist" committed the crime, we're still going to see new laws, and calls for more funding to bloated agencies, and add cameras in every home.

And what about the Saudi man that they swiftly deported?
edit on 4/22/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7
Well, lets take the "Lock down" aka Martial Law incident into account.


Martial Law was not declared. Residents were "advised" to stay in their homes for their own safety, that is completely different to Martial Law.

You see? This is more adjusting of the truth to fit the conspiracy. It's a fact that Martial Law was not announced or enforced in Boston, but because it suits the fantasy you claim that it was.


Originally posted by eXia7
The fact that they allowed a terrorist to run around the city, while making people stay in their homes and cower in fear, while they come in and save the day with their para-military forces, riding on the clouds of justice, to make a swift blow to the terrorist! Put on this exaggerated man-hunt, and just make people feel powerless in their presence.


This is you perception. For most in the city, including the Boston PD who live, work and have family and friends all around them in those homes, there was a real risk to public safety.

How did they "allow" him to run around the city?

Can you imagine if this had become similar to Mumbai? That's what it is looking like right now. The fact that they reportedly hijacked a vehicle, shot at police, threw explosives from the car, and that the older brother also reportedly had a vest on... all of this is starting to sound as though they were planning a Mumbai style attack.

And you would allow that to happen because of this fantasy about Martial Law?


Originally posted by eXia7
But, my general belief is that no matter which "terrorist" committed the crime, we're still going to see new laws, and calls for more funding to bloated agencies, and add cameras in every home.


And when those things happen, you have the opportunity to mobilize, lobby, protest and actually fight against it. But right now, none of those things are even being talked about, at least not by anyone who doesn't believe in a fictional scenario with no evidence to support it.
edit on 22-4-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by eXia7
Well, lets take the "Lock down" aka Martial Law incident into account.


Martial Law was not declared. Residents were "advised" to stay in their homes for their own safety, that is completely different to Martial Law.

You see? This is more adjusting of the truth to fit the conspiracy. It's a fact that Martial Law was not announced or enforced in Boston, but because it suits the fantasy you claim that it was.


Originally posted by eXia7
The fact that they allowed a terrorist to run around the city, while making people stay in their homes and cower in fear, while they come in and save the day with their para-military forces, riding on the clouds of justice, to make a swift blow to the terrorist! Put on this exaggerated man-hunt, and just make people feel powerless in their presence.


This is you perception. For most in the city, including the Boston PD who live, work and have family and friends all around them in those homes, there was a real risk to public safety.

How did they "allow" him to run around the city?

Can you imagine if this had become similar to Mumbai? That's what it is looking like right now. The fact that they reportedly hijacked a vehicle, shot at police, threw explosives from the car, and that the older brother also reportedly had a vest on... all of this is starting to sound as though they were planning a Mumbai style attack.

And you would allow that to happen because of this fantasy about Martial Law?


Originally posted by eXia7
But, my general belief is that no matter which "terrorist" committed the crime, we're still going to see new laws, and calls for more funding to bloated agencies, and add cameras in every home.


And when those things happen, you have the opportunity to mobilize, lobby, protest and actually fight against it. But right now, none of those things are even being talked about, at least not by anyone who doesn't believe in a fictional scenario with no evidence to support it.
edit on 22-4-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)


Yeah, para-military police forces walking around in groves pointing guns at every single person, looking for 1 guy. They "encouraged" people to stay inside, but I'm sure if you were out trying to hunt him down yourself, you would be jailed for obstruction. Basically locking down the entire city, and questioning everybody, pointing guns in people's faces, promoting the fear to control, that's not martial law? Just because they weren't gunning people down in the streets for not obeying their demands, doesn't mean they weren't controlling them through fear.

All of this security, all those billions spent, and they still didn't stop a bomb from exploding. But they will now induce more laws to add more cameras, and move TSA on to the streets. All of the urban training drills that have been happening over the past 2 - 3 years, all meant to adjust people to the new norm. Have we all forgotten about the joint military drills that have been going on?


Lawmakers want more surveillance on the ground -- and in the sky

The successful — and massive — law enforcement effort to obtain public video to help identify the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing shows the need for more government video surveillance cameras, says one congressman. Perhaps drones, too, says a senator.


Source

actually, they are already praising cameras, and calling for more.. drones too.
edit on 4/22/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
The living suspect "can't talk" whatever that means, jaw broken, throat cut, whatever, so that is like he is dead since he won't be talking.

The "craft" people are highly suspicious regardless, they were there to "protect" the crowd yet they failed, these "amateurs" suceeded despite a private military group directly on scene. And these "protectors" just happened to be wearing backpacks of a similar color? And the delay in announcing who they were and why they were there is suspicious.

Let's see, the parents went on tv saying it was a set up and the suspect wrote on twitter he didn't do it. So how much more could they turn themselves in? Maybe they should have gone to the police, maybe they even did it, who knows because they won't tell us and neither will the suspects becaise they are dead/incapacitaded, how convenient!



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7
Yeah, para-military police forces walking around in groves pointing guns at every single person, looking for 1 guy. They "encouraged" people to stay inside, but I'm sure if you were out trying to hunt him down yourself, you would be jailed for obstruction. Basically locking down the entire city, and questioning everybody, pointing guns in people's faces, promoting the fear to control, that's not martial law? Just because they weren't gunning people down in the streets for not obeying their demands, doesn't mean they weren't controlling them through fear.


Para-military?
Pointing guns in everyone's faces?
What exactly are you talking about? I haven't seen anyone in Boston complaining about any of this, have you?
Every country has armed tactical response units, and they have done for decades. The UK has the SAS, in existence and used against terrorist events here several times, and overseas too.
Why do you think the USA should not have these specially rained people?

So, tell me, what do you think they should have done differently?
Should they have just let the kid drive away after he threw explosives from the car and they caught the elder brother with an explosive vest?

I see a lot of accusations and irrational paranoia about "Martial Law", but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of suggestion about how this should have been dealt with.


Originally posted by eXia7
All of this security, all those billions spent, and they still didn't stop a bomb from exploding. But they will now induce more laws to add more cameras, and move TSA on to the streets. All of the urban training drills that have been happening over the past 2 - 3 years, all meant to adjust people to the new norm. Have we all forgotten about the joint military drills that have been going on?


Billions spent? Show me a receipt.
They didn't stop a bomb from exploding? Show me evidence of that.
What if they interview the kid and find out he was being directed by a cell in another state? Or that there are more cells across the USA?
Isn't it a little too early to be saying this was all wasted money? And what is the alternative, let him go to potentially murder more people, because chasing him would be too expensive?


Originally posted by eXia7
actually, they are already praising cameras, and calling for more.. drones too.
edit on 4/22/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)


Some are suggesting so. But then some are suggesting fewer cameras and no drones, some are planning to protest the funerals of the dead, some want to breed pink unicorns... there are a lot of different opinions in this world that you are not going to agree with, and just because "random lawmaker" made some remark about drones does not mean you're about the be monitored by a police state 24/7.

I'm still not seeing any rationality, any evidence or any basis for the belief of a false flag. The conspiracy theorists of ATS seem mighty quiet in this thread right here. I guess a lot of them want to stick to the threads where the BS will be lapped up, they can't answer the questions I've asked or respond to the basic facts.

I am even less convinced that it was a false flag than I was when I started.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Somebody had to pay for all of these "tactical response teams" as you call them, I'm sure you can do the research and find out, and do all the math.

I never said having a response unit was a bad thing, and it's good to have it. But, you call me paranoid.. I don't think that's the case, I'm just against big government, and I refuse to cower in the presence of authority. I don't support invasion of privacy, and erosion of freedom to track down the boogey man.

This was a rare incident, we haven't had a major terrorist attack that caused so much fear in irrational people since 9/11. Now people believe there are terrorists under every dinner table and they are ready to willingly give up their freedoms to be safe.

Patriot Act, NDAA

Besides, the kid can't speak now, how will they get the truth? He can't even defend himself in a public statement.
edit on 4/22/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
The living suspect "can't talk" whatever that means, jaw broken, throat cut, whatever, so that is like he is dead since he won't be talking.


Wrong. Being mute is not akin to death, to suggest so shows that you are grasping at straws to keep believing your theory.
He has a neck injury, and is probably also on medication. That's why he can't talk.
Please tell me why he is still alive if this was a false flag.


Originally posted by filosophia
The "craft" people are highly suspicious regardless, they were there to "protect" the crowd yet they failed, these "amateurs" suceeded despite a private military group directly on scene. And these "protectors" just happened to be wearing backpacks of a similar color? And the delay in announcing who they were and why they were there is suspicious.


Look at any large event from sporting events to festivals and you will find that the most used backpack colour is actually black. I have two myself. The fact that so many backpacks were the same colour is complete nonsense and means nothing at all.

I will agree that I would like to know more about Craft International. But having security at an event like this is not unusual in the slightest. The problem is that in the USA you like to take private security to the extremes, like boys pretending and playing dress up. They like to make out they are some kind of heroic military force, when really they are nothing more than glorified stewards.

Like it or not, private security are there to deal with petty crime and crowd control, assisting the local police force. The fact that they like to play dress up is nothing to do with it. They are no special forces, they are not anti-terror police, they are not government agents. They are the American equivalent of a UK security guard sitting at a reception desk in a twee brown uniform.


Originally posted by filosophia
Let's see, the parents went on tv saying it was a set up and the suspect wrote on twitter he didn't do it. So how much more could they turn themselves in? Maybe they should have gone to the police, maybe they even did it, who knows because they won't tell us and neither will the suspects becaise they are dead/incapacitaded, how convenient!


Wouldn't it be more convenient if they were BOTH dead?!
No one can answer this. But people keep pretending I haven't raised this issue so they don't have to explain it.

WHY IS HE STILL ALIVE?!

Why do you think his parents would know that he's innocent? Where is the tweet claiming innocence? Why didn't he hand himself in? Why did he and his brother then kill a security officer at MIT, have a shoot out with police, throw bombs around the street, and why did he then go on the run and hide in a boat?

I have said before that I think the younger brother was persuaded or coerced into it by his older brother, because running away and hiding in a small space is not the behaviour I would associate with a violent terrorist - it's behaviour I would associate with a scared child.

But regardless, there is nothing "convenient" about him being alive and potentially able to make statements if this were a false flag.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7
Somebody had to pay for all of these "tactical response teams" as you call them, I'm sure you can do the research and find out, and do all the math.


Yes, and I'll bet it's a drop in the ocean compared to a lot of excessive spending in government.


Originally posted by eXia7
I never said having a response unit was a bad thing, and it's good to have it. But, you call me paranoid.. I don't think that's the case, I'm just against big government, and I refuse to cower in the presence of authority. I don't support invasion of privacy, and erosion of freedom to track down the boogey man.


That's your opinion.
But what would you do if this happened in your city and you didn't have that response to deal with it? I think you believe you'd become some kind of "Rambo" and the people would deal with it themselves, right?

Life is not a movie.


Originally posted by eXia7
This was a rare incident, we haven't had a major terrorist attack that caused so much fear in irrational people since 9/11. Now people believe there are terrorists under every dinner table and they are ready to willingly give up their freedoms to be safe.


Is it irrational to be fearful for the safety of your loved ones? I don't think so.
While I agree that logic dictates the chances of being caught up in something like this are ridiculously small, and you're more likely to be hit by a bus crossing the road, that is with the response you have now. If nothing was spent on securing your borders, checking luggage and shipping, monitoring and intelligence, you would probably find yourself living in something like the Wild West.


Originally posted by eXia7
and I find your condescending wording unpleasant.
edit on 4/22/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)


Many people do, that's not my problem but I regret that you feel that way.
I find a lot of the stupidity on ATS and the unreasonable assumptions made by people unpleasant too. I also find it unpleasant that people accuse others of being "disinfo agents" when they can't argue a point. I guess this place makes me a little argumentative sometimes





new topics
top topics
 
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join