Monday, April 22, 2013

More Thoughts On Boston

I wasn't going to write about this again, but I'll just mention a couple more things, and then we'll move on.

Like Jim Kunstler, I am allergic to conspiracy theories. That said, I do believe there are conspiracies. We know this from history. In fact, my first (and only) published article was on the now-defunct (as far as I know) Online Journal, pointing out that the government must have had foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks (the anthrax letters are pretty damning evidence that everyone seems to conveniently forget).

Thanks to Naked Capitalism for reminding me of a story I read but didn't remember where. It was a Mother Jones story about the fact that all of the major "terrorist plots" since Sept. 11 have ultimately been  set up by the FBI to "trap" potential terror suspects. In other words, they would not have happened without government prompting. The money quote:

“The problem with the cases we’re talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents,” says Martin Stolar, a lawyer who represented a man caught in a 2004 sting involving New York’s Herald Square subway station. “They’re creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror.”

I alluded to this in my comments. But it keeps looking more and more like this is the case, or that these guys really were patsies. There was an interview with the suspects' mother on the BBC (hardly a conspiracy site) claiming that her son was controlled by the FBI for the past five years. Their father in Russia also claimed that they were set up by the government. You could dismiss this as parents saying "my dear little precious could never do such an awful thing." Still, who knows these people better than their own parents?

And I'm wondering what these guys were even doing in the United States with their parents living in Russia and England. How did they support themselves? Dzokhar was only a high-school student, and Tamerlan seems to have been an amateur boxer, but that's not a job you can support yourself with. And he was even married apparently. WTF? What was his "real" job, I wonder? College isn't cheap, and these "poor immigrants" didn't seem to be hard up for money.

And the younger suspect seems to have had no idea he had even committed a crime at all. He continued to "tweet" normal 19-year-old papblum after the attack (and before the attack as well - not much of a radical). And he seems to not to have even known he was a suspect:
While Boston frantically searched for him, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev apparently wasn’t very worried. The 19-year-old was on the campus of University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, where the suspect was a sophomore, and went to class every day after the attack until officials released his photograph late Thursday, reports CNN. On Wednesday, two days after the Boston Marathon bombing, Tsarnaev went to the gym and, according to a witness, even attended a party at night with his soccer buddies, according to the Boston Globe.

“He was just relaxed,” the unnamed witness said. Tsarnaev led such a typical student life after the bombing that even after his photo was released as a suspect, some who knew him didn’t make the connection. “We made a joke like—that could be Dzhokhar,” said a 22-year-old resident assistant at the dorms where Tsarnaev lived. “But then we thought it just couldn’t be him. Dzhokhar? Never.”

Pretty icy behavior for a Muslim guy who just set off two bombs in police-state America. And this benign portrait of this "killer" has been confirmed by literally everyone who knew the kid. He seems more like your average 19 year old hip-hop-loving stoner rather than a budding radical Muslim terrorist. And note that Chechens are angry at Russia, not the U.S., so why bomb a random target, and not even a government one at that?

So what I wonder is, was Tamerlan's real job an undercover FBI agent trained to infiltrate Muslim radical groups in America and/or Russia? That seem to square with the "normal" domestic life he led, along with his athleticism and his lack of a "real job. Maybe the reason he started getting "more religious" was because he had to as part of his cover. He would have been an ideal recruit.

Then, one day, you are asked by your handlers to show up at the finish line of the Boston marathon. You bring your kid bother along. There seems to be evidence that there was some kind of drill and a significant security presence at the finish line. Maybe he was there as part of that, but working for the government. Some claim that "keep calm," and "don't panic" was broadcast over the loudspeakers before the explosions went off. And isn't it interesting how all these links between these "random" terror suspects and the FBI just keep coming out (much like the September 11 terrorists):
The FBI has confirmed that it interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the two brothers authorities say were behind last week's Boston Marathon bombings, in 2011 at the request of a foreign government, which officials have since identified as Russia. The FBI, however, says that its agents didn't find any evidence of suspicious activity and, as a result, closed the case.

So even after the explosions you go about your daily life until you turn on the TV and see a picture of you and your kid brother identified as terror suspects. You know you were at the scene of the crime, because they told you to be. So what do you do? You run, that's what. Initially, I took their shootouts with police and possession of bombs as a sign of guilt, but now I'm not so sure. First we were told that Tamerlan died in a shootout, then that he was accidentally run over by his brother. And his death sure is convenient, isn't it? Where did these guys learn to shoot guns well enough to fight off trained policemen, I wonder?

The younger brother was taken into custody, barley alive, but is supposedly unable to speak. He is able to communicate through writing, though. I wonder what he'll say. And I wonder if we'll ever get to hear it.

And the reasons for all of this are pretty obvious. As one commenter on NC put it:
Well, the whole affair stinks with the relentless and lying speculations in the media. I think this was, if nothing else, a good opportunity to test a police-state takeover of an entire city. The authorities now know that there will be no objection to such a thing by the people who have proven time and time again that they want an authoritarian state and this recent incident guarantees that’s what were going to get.
So they now know they can shut down a major American city and control it at will. It's not like they can use a "drill" to test that. And they might also know that people can be set up for crimes, declared a "terrorist," and be killed or vanished without skepticism or due process Scary stuff.

And note how, unlike the last time there was this much economic inequality, the acts of violence are all against average citizens instead of elites (no bombings of all those empty billionaire houses or yachts?). As I've said before, there is an easily documented revolving door between banks and national security services. During the Cold War, those security services developed finely-tuned ways to destabilize societies to prevent communism from emerging or to overthrow legitimately elected governments (Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Angola, etc.) - divide and conquer, control of media, funding opposition parties, random terrorist attacks to keep people on edge, assassinations, etc. Well, those same techniques that prevent communism "over there" work just as well domestically. I've heard many commenters openly wonder why there is so little opposition or reaction to our second Gilded Age. Could this be the reason?

I don't make claims one way or the other.  It's too early to tell. I go where the evidence takes me, and we'll see what evidence comes out. But as it stands now, this story stinks.

BONUS: security theater, martial law, and a tale that trumps every cop-and-donut joke you've ever heard (popehat)


  1. Well written, balanced post into scary territory.

    All I am advocating is skepticism. Treat this as a scientific problem.

    How does science work? In this case, we can only observe, we can't experiment.

    One needs a working hypothesis or two or three, which can be falsified based on what one finds.

    Which hypothesis fits the evidence most closely?

    MSM stories can only be used as evidence with caution, since the authorities routinely lie even when they don't need to cover anything up.

    Question: will the alternative media be able to gain enough attention and credibility to make a significant percentage of Americans aware that all is not well with the Republic?

    1. The problem is, you get the types who want to blame literally everything bad that happens on the government, like the Alex Jones types. Or you get the people who unquestioningly accept the official media line. And nothing in between, it seems. Healthy skepticism seems to be dead. Land of exteremes indeed.

      If I really wanted to sound paranoid, I'd suggest that Alex Jones is himself a government agent designed to make anyone who questions the official line look nuts. That's why you heard all the more outlandish theories about 9-11 (aliens, mirrors, remote-controlled aircraft), with no questioning the legitmate parts of the story that didn't make sense.

    2. This is disturbing shit. As you were researching this, did you get a good sense of the "younger brother relaxed and partied" angle being solid information? Any of this could be manipulated from many directions, so I am not sure what to think at this point.

    3. Me neither, which is why I'm not going to think about it any more.

  2. Wow. I just checked out a post on, about conspiracy theorists, etc.

    Their utter contempt for anybody who questions the governments information or motivations is amazing. It's almost like... hysteria. It's very strange: if they are so sure they are right, why the hysteria against those they brand "conspiracy theorists," which seems to include those who are simply skeptical?

  3. "Like Jim Kunstler, I am allergic to conspiracy theories."

    That's not stopping him from ranting about a plot against gold the past three weeks. Honestly, Elaine Meinel Supkis, who I said you should read except for her penchant for rabid Anti-Zionism among other kooky ideas, is making more sense than Jim these days. She's no fan of fiat money, but even Zany Elaine isn't promoting any conspiracy theories about gold's drop. I now recommend you read her.

    As for the lockdown, did you know that the one business in Boston told to stay open was Dunkin Donuts? Ah, cops and donut shops!

    1. Did you see this: Warren Buffet versus goldbugs:

      Wise words. I think Jim got trapped in, of all things, the psychology of previous investment. He spent so much time building up the idea that we will all be trading guilders and dubloons in the world made by hand, he just can't accept that gold is just another investment that goes down as well as up, like everything else. For a guy who constantly says he doesn't like conspiracy theories, he sure buys into a lot of them.

      I'm not sure why so many people listen to the guy. He's a terrific writer, and can turn a great phrase (I've stolen a few myself). But that's his talent, not deep analysis. He seems immune to facts, preferring mental constructs based on nostalgia more than anything else. He latches on to certain opinions and never lets go. And his knowledge of economics is shaky; he has a theater degree, for Chrissakes! (not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't mean you're an economics expert). His social criticism is probably his best stuff.

    2. Didn't see that. I don't really read "boing boing" or know what it is.
      Read the piece.

      What Warren Buffet misses is that gold fulfills one, but not all, of the functions of money very well: a store of value.

      You could have used gold to buy a men's suit in ancient Rome, and can today (after you exchange it for some ephemeral modern fiat currency).

      Gold is not a good investment, as Buffet points out. It produces nothing.

      But it's still a good store of value. That's what the central bankers hate about it.

      I'm not a gold nut, just pointing out the facts of history.
      Buffet's day is soon passing, as economies enter permanent contraction in more and more sectors.

      I don't like that fact: in fact, my family and dependents are singularly uninterested in this reality, and still plan and fantasize about exotic vacations and such amenities as "endless pools," basement saunas, and upstairs renovations. At the same time, no matter how much money I make, it is never enough to go around.

  4. Do you have any good sources on 9/11 anthrax letters? The wikipedia article isn't very helpful.

    There are some interesting questions in this post I hadn't considered. I was stalking the one brother's twitter feed and saw pictures of him standing around BMWs and wearing nice clothes. I just assumed the had wealthy parents. I wonder what the explanation is.

    I don't understand all of your reasoning with the bombs. During the shoot out, they apparently threw one of the pressure-cooker bombs at police. So it's safe to assume they knowingly planted the same bombs at the marathon.

    1. I based it on the Federation of American Scientists (FAS)report which I believe was part of congressional testimoney. It makes a pretty airtight case that whoever sent the letters had foreknowledge of the attacks and when they would occur. They were mailed about simultaneously with the attacks (or maybe even a little before, I forget). It is a matter of public record that the anthrax was from highly guarded U.S. weapons labs. You don't just wake up one day and decide to mail out anthrax letters. Cleary it was planned before the attack.

      And the case was never solved satisfactorily. There was no believable suspect or motive ever found. As I recall, the last person who they were investigating killed himself with Tylenol (!!!) and the case was dropped permanently. Yet there is no mention of this at all in the media. The only actor in the whole scenario who had a motive to send out anthrax letters was the government itself, keen to link the attacks with Saddam Hussein (a known anthrax holder). In the end, they simply implied a link and went to war anyway.

      The put and call options were another damning piece of evidence. Obviously you need to know who placed the trades, otherwise how could you know whom to pay? Yet we were never told who placed them. And they were placed at banks with clear ties to the CIA. The former head of Deutsche Bank was the number 3 man at the CIA, and the head at the time of the attacks resigned days after and went to work at an energy firm with ties to Dick Cheney.

      Again, lots of legitimate questions, but instead people are obsessed with whether the planes were remote controlled or whether there were charges in the building.

    2. At least PukeSkywalker uses the word "apparently."
      Very little of the official explanation is "apparent," other than the fact that the statements were made on the mainstream press by authorities.

      That is not synonymous with "perceivable" or evidence.
      It's just been proven that the brothers did not rob a 7-11. A 7-11 spokesperson has said that 1 7-11 was held up that night, but not by anyone that looked like the brothers.

      Even Dmitri Orlov, not a conspiracy theorist, thinks it was.... well, a conspiracy or psy-ops.

      The data points do not line up when you try to confirm the authorities' statements with evidence. I found a real photo of the second brother leaving the boat unharmed on CBC.
      A few minutes later he was shot in the throat or had had a tracheotomy. Eye-witnesses say the first brother was tackled alive. Then he ended up... well, dead.

      What is very interesting is the fact that most humans seem to willfully ignore scary evidence that their rulers or superiors or those up the hierarchy are mendacious or evil.

      It is scary.

      That is why so many abused wives stay with their abusers, and won't testify against them.

      It's why pre-Einstein scientists couldn't see evidence that led to the theory of relativity.

      I understand: it's almost intolerably scary to think that some part of our government is evil enough to kill innocents to further their goals.

      However, we already know this is true. There are numerous videos of our troops killing innocent civilians abroad. Sometimes for fun.

      Why is it so hard to imagine that what such people would do abroad, they would do here?

      Follow the facts, but that means do not let emotion cloud the search, as much as possible. Set aside fear and credulity, and use intuition and reason.

  5. This is an interesting quote, from Hitler of all people:

    Hitler On The Big Lie

    All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.