Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

RED FLAG - Why has no Jihadi group claimed responsibility for Boston?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
This thought struck me earlier, while i was in a zoned out state of abstract reflection on a number of related topics whilst doing a chore that was run-of-the-mill & required no active brain power. You know what I mean - when your mind is free to wander around the metaspheres in quick-fire patterns of connectivity between disparate subjects.

Anyway, it hit me quite suddenly, and then - as I'd not really picked up on it in the forefront of my mind - it hit me again, a little more forcefully.

WHY have no Jihadi groups claimed responsibility for the Boston bombings? Why have no known terror groups claimed to have had a hand in training or teaching the Tsarnaev brothers? Why did we, as an investigative group, miss this fact, despite it almost always being an immediate event in the aftermath of a terror attack, real or false flag - that SOMEONE claims responsibility, or at least a connection (tenuous or concrete, or somewhere between) with the bombers..?

Is this a part of the unfolding plot? Do they want to assess whether we take the 'official word' even when everything seems to stack up as not being representative of a genuine terror attack?


If I am wrong, and it has been claimed by some group or other, then I will stand corrected. But still, I would ask why we have not:

a) Heard more about it in the media, and
b) Discussed this in a bit more detail on ATS...


Someone ALWAYS claims responsibility. Even when it is random chechnyan brothers.

The attack was 'successful' in terrorist terms - so why has nobody leapt on the publicity bandwagon to attract more disaffected young Muslim men (who share a dislike of America) to their cause?


edit on 22-4-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: grammar..




posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Considering the that US has a tendency towards bombing, shooting and otherwise killing terrorists it is my opinion that they simply don't want to die.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
ETA - note that the FBI are allegedly now searching for a sleeper cell.

If this is the case, then an organisation sponsored the Tsarnaevs. Why have this organisation not claimed responsibility?

I believe the ground may be in the process of being prepped for further false flags, and the 'rogue sleeper cell', and perhaps others connected to them, are going to be blamed for a series of atrocities over the coming weeks & months.

Only after the next attacks will the (pseudo) Jihadi group unveil 'themselves' to the world.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Metallicus
 


Nonsense. The purpose of terror is to undermine & strike fear into the heart of the civilian populace of your enemy. The only ones doing that at present are the FBI by claiming that a mysterious sleeper cell exists, just waiting, somewhere in the shadows, ready to pounce and do more evil against the USA. The terrorist 'Al Qaeda' network could have claimed this one with no-one getting anything on the actual operatives involved, because like Anonymous, 'Al Qaeda' is just an idea, a network of individuals - albeit one with complex and well-equipped logistical capabilities in certain areas.

An overseas sponsor for terror is highly likely in general, and given what we know, if this was a REAL terrorist attack, and not (as I believe) a false flag, then it could be that the Saudis have a hand in it, but that Saudi intelligence has stepped in and gagged them.

As it stands, an ethereal 'terrorist group', 'somewhere' have sponsored 'the Tsarnaevs', are presently enabling a 'sleeper cell', and will likely 'order a strike' by that cell on a major target/ targets if it looks like the FBI are getting too close to catching wind of them.

That is, if the whole thing wasn't a false flag from the beginning, to the middle (where we're at) and onwards to the end. As I suspect it will one day be proven to have been.

ETA:

NB - I have suspicions that actual Jihadis have been utilised to pad out the false flag event, in order to sow reasonable doubt as to their being a blatant false flag when considered in amongst the otherwise ludicrous circumstance surrounding the bombings.

The bombings were tragic, and yes people died. But don't let that blind you to the fact that the US government seems to have a thing for whipping up some new draconian measures, in dribs and drabs, by the use of carefully stage-managed false flag events. The perpetrators also manipulate a lot of well-meaning patriotic folk, the law-abiding citizens & law enforcement officials, who are simply conforming to the 'reality' they perceive & have been conditioned to accept, unaware that the sharks swim just beyond the waves in which they paddle.

edit on 22-4-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: per ETA



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Metallicus
 


Nonsense. The purpose of terror is to undermine & strike fear into the heart of the civilian populace of your enemy. The only ones doing that at present are the FBI by claiming that a mysterious sleeper cell exists, just waiting, somewhere in the shadows, ready to pounce and do more evil against the USA. The terrorist 'Al Qaeda' network could have claimed this one with no-one getting anything on the actual operatives involved, because like Anonymous, 'Al Qaeda' is just an idea, a network of individuals - albeit one with complex and well-equipped logistical capabilities in certain areas.

An overseas sponsor for terror is highly likely in general, and given what we know, if this was a REAL terrorist attack, and not (as I believe) a false flag, then it could be that the Saudis have a hand in it, but that Saudi intelligence has stepped in and gagged them.

As it stands, an ethereal terrorist group 'somewhere' have sponsored the Tsarnaevs, are presently enabling a sleeper cell, and will likely 'order' a strike by that cell on a major target/ targets if it looks like the FBI are getting too close to catching wind of them.

That is, if the whole thing wasn't a false flag from the beginning to the middle (where we're at) and onwards to the end. As I suspect it will be one day proven.



Claiming responsibility is not need to strike fear, in fact it would be smarter for them to go to ground so that they may strike again another day.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
See Predator drones.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Woah buddy, quit misinterpreting my words..!! The correct meaning of my comment was perfectly clear, but you, for some unknown reason, decided to dramatically misrepresent the salient points of what was written in your one-line response.

It wasn't the explicit point of my comment that 'in order to strike fear, someone must claim responsibility' What a crock..! The actual point was simply, that the only ones causing fear at present are the FBI/ DHS/ National Guard & Police, etc - inciting fear through the issuance of rhetoric via the media.

As regards claiming responsibility, it makes perfect sense that a sponsoring group would claim Boston as a glorious victory for the cause of Allah.

You'll notice that I also referenced drawing other disaffected Muslim men to their cause. That would be the reason to claim responsibility. It wouldn't even need to be the actual group responsible.. Any quick-witted Jihadi group leader embedded properly within the intelligence community of an allied nation could claim responsibility, draw Muslim men to the cause (under the radar of course) and thus boost the likelihod of securing further funding & causing more terror attacks.

Anyway, the point of all this is actually that the lack of a claim of responsibility only goes to add to the weight of strange and outright ridiculous aspects evident in this case, which overall & in conjunction with one another lend credence to its having been a false flag.

edit on 22-4-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: clarification..



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


Terror, fear and of course the obligatory erosion of liberty has all been accomplished without anyone claiming responsibility for this act of terror. Clearly those responsible have already achieved their goal.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Metallicus
 


Clearly, they are short-sighted & have no brains. Boston is a 'glorious victory for Allah' in the minds of radicals. So why have they not claimed it? Drawing more Jihadis & potential Suicide Bombers into their ranks?

The true terror sponsors are perfectly capable of protecting their agents, and we all know what I mean by that - or you should, and it doesn't directly imply that the US is corrupt (though it is) - there are other very real culprits out there, and I can think of three nations of the top of my head that actively recruit, train, finance & protect from foreign intel agencies the Jihadis in their midst.

In actual fact, what has caused fear and terror, mayhem & chaos is not the bombers, but rather the absolutely chuffin ridiculous media feeding frenzy & the FBI/ DHS/ National Guard efforts at lockdown/ manhunt/ 'de facto state of martial law'.

I think that anyone can see that with a little more tact & selectively actionable intelligence, the whole thing could have been handled much better. London got back to work the next day, whilst the police, et al, got on with their jobs of figuring out the who & where.

Boston gets totally shut down, with 9000 heavily armed men looking for a single kid.

Is that not going to cause fear and panic, terror & mayhem? I think it would.

Add in the explosion at a fertiliser plant the next day, and rumors of sabotage in Oklahoma, and a great number of people in the USA were crapping bricks due to the press & military/intel/police handling of the matter.



edit on 22-4-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: clarification/ expansion of point/ spelling



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
maybe because they didn't do it?

just a thought



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
very good point op....

what ever happened to the terrorists of the 70's who stood up and said 'we did that!" ? an attack like this on american soil....couldnt be a better recruitment poster for some terrorist group....but all there is is silence..............when the bombings happend i thought for sure a letter or video would show up in a day or so to a news station claiming responsiblity but ..no, nothing....the only noise that is heard if from the fbi saying..'fear fear fear, could possibly be more out there, fear fear fear..we need more powers to apprehend these people how may or may not be out there'



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Well some terrorist group is more than welcome to claim responsibility if they wish.

But I think they'd fear retaliation. And what's more, that would really muck up the suspect in custody's case wouldn't it? If a terror group came forward and states the suspect was acting in their bequest - would the suspects status change to "enemy combatant"?

Something to watch out for in the coming weeks/months/years.

Cirque
edit on 22-4-2013 by CirqueDeTruth because: spelling



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Its because too many people now see through the Governments Lies, They are scrambling to put together a convincing and collaborating story for the public to believe. I mean SCRAMMBLING.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
 


I appreciate your points, they are fair.

However, Al Qaeda need only voice a statement claiming loose affiliation, former association or solidarity with their 'glorious and brave brothers-in-arms, as they struggled against the Great Satan and won an historic victory, dealing a strong blow to the corrupt infidels of the USA' etc, ad nauseum.

But no, not even a whisper. A statement of solidarity, or a claim of support for their cause, or anything - that would make sense, it would be untraceable, and it would advance the Jihadi cause.

But no - nothing but silence from the terrorists.

Contrast that with US leadership shouting from the rafters via media concerning the need for enhanced security, loss of freedoms, suspect everyone, trust no-one, comply with (effectively) illegal militarized lockdowns.

Citizens in fear, panic on the streets with every movement of the FBI/ DHS/ National Guard etc, and ongoing worry for all citizens so affected by such things, that someone may be ready to strike against the mainland USA yet again, in an unpredictable way, at an unpredictable time, in an unpredictable place.

The uncertainty, and the waiting, and the fear, is what will cripple the spirit of America, if these sort of psychological operations continue.

PS - did any of those lovely new DHS light armoured vehicles get used in Boston? Just a thought. We might be seeing more such lockdowns as the hunt for the sleeper cell continues.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


You're not the only one who wondered why no group claimed responsibility. Former terrorist group Muslim Brotherhood actually commended the bombings while other terrorist groups straight outta the ME are happy to see the USA have their own terror attacks but claimed no responsibility.

Meanwhile, that same fatal Monday in Boston across the world in Iraq a string of 25 deadly terrorist attacks left 61 Iraqi's dead and 274 wounded with no one taking responsibility. So maybe not taking responsibility for their terrorist attacks is the new trend.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Because CIA has killed most all off,
and is now focused on framing Americans as terrorists, than off-shorers



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Thank you for the extra info - I had wondered whether there was an unspoken code of non-claiming emerging as a trend amongst Jihadis (I hate calling them terrorists, because all I can see when I say that word is G W Bush's inane mugshot..)

I will dig a little deeper tomorrow into the other attacks you mention, & see whether there are any particular features that we can look to in order to clarify why no claims have been made.

[EDIT - redacted tactless comment]


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



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


No problem, and like I said, it is very odd no group claimed responsibility for the very high profile Boston attack. It does baffle my mind but then again, what do I know?

You don't have to look hard, I just wrote a quick thread because a search yields no results on ATS about those bombings.... or I just really fail at using ATS's new search feature.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


or maybe the same organization is responsible for the attacks in Boston and Iraq on the same day?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well my mind is once again torn over this issue. I told my wife that I had made this thread, and explained the premise, and she suddenly remembered a dream she had last night.

In it, someone was telling her that the Jihadis had deliberately not claimed responsibility for the attacks, in order that masses of people in the USA begin to blame their government for the attack, that an event horizon may be reached as a result, with regards to people finally believing in huge numbers that false flags are a real and present danger to the nation. The ramifications of this paradigm shift according to the dream narrator would be open revolution, and it would herald in the End of the World as we know it.

She's had dreams that have come to pass, and the scenario of her dream is a plausible reason to describe why an actual Jihadi group perpetrating terrorist attacks would not claim responsibility.

I will reflect, investigate, and keep an open mind - I'll come back to this topic when I've had chance to consolidate & clarify my position.

NB - Just hearing news that the younger Tsarnaev brother is due to be charged with using a WMD, and so in tandem with his inability to talk due to convenient injuries to his 'throat and tongue' (laughably precise if you want to ensure he can't speak or shout out in front of witnesses), and a likely tightly controlled trial, we will likely never hear his side of the story in his own actual words. Death penalty on federal charges, case closed, job done..

Lots to think about.









 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join