Two explosions went off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon

FluffyMcDeath said:
Not so much a plot, but a mess. The CIA has links with terrorists and uses them and stuff happens and sometimes there's blowback.
Click to expand...
Well, of course the CIA is linked to terrorists. They were linked to communists during the cold war as well. It's what they do. How do you understand your enemy without making a link? And a link with the CIA isn't enough to indicate the purpose of the link. Back in early 2003 Tigger (remember him, where he go?) attempted to convince us that Saddam was working with al-Qaeda because one of the 9/11 attackers (Atta I believe) met with an Iraqi intelligence agent. It was a dubious claim, but even if it were true it would not indicate one way or another if Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack or if his intelligence agency was attempting to infiltrate al-Qaeda.

In this particular case, the connection is equally dubious. And the connection isn't just between the CIA and Ruslan, it's pretty much implied the connection extends all the way to the two accused bombers, even if indirectly. That's why it's being posted, to cast doubt about the official story and surely the #FreeJahar movement will run with this.

Like Cheney quit working for Haliburton before he became vice president, etc. Like Bush senior quite working for the CIA before he became vice president and then president.
Click to expand...
Sure there are connections, but not always good ones. Some times people stop working for the CIA because of a falling out or a change in personal views, etc. And not even all active CIA agents agree on everything. You're treating the CIA employees as a bunch of mindless droids who all think the same. A connection isn't enough to prove intent. Unless of course you present it the right way, which you've done. With Cheney there was a long list of other evidence that weighted far more convincingly against him. Again you're attempting to use guilt by association, but it's very weak. I'm sure I could provide you a list just as long of people associated with bad groups that were themselves not bad. And what would that prove?
 
Glaucus said:
Well, of course the CIA is linked to terrorists. They were linked to communists during the cold war as well. It's what they do. How do you understand your enemy without making a link? And a link with the CIA isn't enough to indicate the purpose of the link. Back in early 2003 Tigger (remember him, where he go?) attempted to convince us that Saddam was working with al-Qaeda because one of the 9/11 attackers (Atta I believe) met with an Iraqi intelligence agent. It was a dubious claim, but even if it were true it would not indicate one way or another if Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack or if his intelligence agency was attempting to infiltrate al-Qaeda.

In this particular case, the connection is equally dubious. And the connection isn't just between the CIA and Ruslan, it's pretty much implied the connection extends all the way to the two accused bombers, even if indirectly. That's why it's being posted, to cast doubt about the official story and surely the #FreeJahar movement will run with this.

Sure there are connections, but not always good ones. Some times people stop working for the CIA because of a falling out or a change in personal views, etc. And not even all active CIA agents agree on everything. You're treating the CIA employees as a bunch of mindless droids who all think the same. A connection isn't enough to prove intent. Unless of course you present it the right way, which you've done. With Cheney there was a long list of other evidence that weighted far more convincingly against him. Again you're attempting to use guilt by association, but it's very weak. I'm sure I could provide you a list just as long of people associated with bad groups that were themselves not bad. And what would that prove?
Click to expand...

lol.. just.. lol.. you do get that our government is killing in the name of? right?
 
you'd rather believe that a whole batch of million to one probabilities just happened in front of you like a firecracker, please do... i'd consider myself justly castigated after that....
 
Glaucus said:
You're treating the CIA employees as a bunch of mindless droids who all think the same.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of them are, just as in any organization, but they aren't the ones I'm talking about. Ambitious people keep connections that are useful to them. Ambitious people are willing to bend the expected norms to climb the ladder. Ambitious people will scratch backs and give friends a leg up in order to receive a back scratching. Ambitious people get to the top and are in and out of each others families working on building useful relationships.

Now, uncle Ruslan may just have coincidentally married Fuller's daughter and Fuller may have been surprisingly unaware of Ruslan's background. On the other hand, Fuller and Ruslan had a common enemy, Russia and while Ruslan had friends who could give Russia a hard time, Fuller had friends who could help people who would do that sort of work. It's not just that two random people got married and one of them happened to be crooked.

Uncle Ruslan definitely has a colourful background whether or not Fuller is a part of it but terrorists being funded and/or assisted by US intelligence agencies is shockingly common. That doesn't necessarily tie Ruslan to the the planning of the bombing either, it's likely quite the reverse and he genuinely despises those "losers" because they have drawn unwanted attention and attacked the wrong target. Nonetheless, it would be a teensy bit embarrassing if the connection were to pan out. Fortunately Fuller has said there's nothing to it which provides us with absolutely no information of value - he would deny it if it was false, he would deny it if it was true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top